You searched for 10 more reasons - Page 11 of 15 - Aberdeen Voice

ACC Exceeds Own Tullos Target: 34 Deer Shot

 Aberdeen City, Featured, News  11 Responses »
Jun 272012
 

34 Deer – possibly 35 – were killed from March to early May 2012.  This newly emerged fact contrasts with the City’s earlier claims that 22 – then 23 animals were destroyed for the controversial ‘tree for every citizen’ scheme. Suzanne Kelly updates Voice readers.

deer5pic
The public’s frustration over the unwanted deer cull is past the tipping point, as contradictory information and propaganda mount up.  A full impartial investigation is a necessity to ensure that no further culls happen and that those responsible for a catalogue of failures are brought to book.

What are the recent developments?  What are some of the issues the cull’s proponents need to be held accountable for?

1.  Thirty Four or Thirty Five Deer Were Shot

Last week the Press & Journal ran a story advising 23 deer had been killed.  The revelation had been made earlier in Aberdeen Voice that 22 deer were shot according to the City weeks ago.   The figure was increased by one due to a blunder.  But the real truth is shocking.

Further to a Freedom of Information request, Aberdeen Voice learnt late last week that either 34 or 35 animals were shot between mid-March and 9 May.  The city produced a notebook (the first page of which was 2/3 redacted) showing scrawled, incomplete notes for the destruction of 35 animals.

However, a typed list also supplied with this Freedom of Information request lists 34 deer killed.

From the weights of some of the does, it may be they were pregnant.  The approximate age of the animals was not covered in these notes (only the sex), yet the City had claimed on one instance that the weights indicated the animals may have been malnourished.

Some of the notebook entries indicate that some deer were ‘clean kills’. Other entries make no such claim, yet the City’s FOI officers represented that all the kills were clean.

Is this definitely the case – the notes do not support this conclusion.  It is also not clear how many rounds were used for the cull; it is also stated in the newly-released documents that 33 rounds were used to kill either 34 or 35 animals – which would have been quite a  miraculous feat.

Times of shooting have also been contradicted – the city first claimed that some were shot in early morning hours.  After Animal Concern Advice Line’s John Robins issued a press release saying such times would have been outwith the law, the City has tried to backtrack.

Who exactly authorised such a massive cull?  Why are the notes so very sloppy and in places contradictory?  Were shots taken outwith the legal time slots as the city first said?  Should the deer have legally been shot at all (the Scottish SPCA has doubts, as will be shown later)?

A roe deer fawn born on Tullos Hill 2011. probably now culled by Aberdeen City Council.
The original cull plan, per a report written by ‘CJ Piper & Co’ jointly with Aberdeen City Council (presented to back the tree scheme to the Forestry Commission) said they would kill 22 deer in the first year of the tree scheme alone.

A single night-time count indicated 29 deer were on the hill at the time, and the City decided with Piper that 75% of the population would be exterminated that year to protect the non-existent trees.

What is this report?  Who actually wrote it, and who on the Council rubber-stamped it as truth?

2.  Report Riddled with Error and Bias Sealed Deer’s Fate

The report, co-written by ‘CJ Piper & Co.’ and Aberdeen City Council is misleading before the reader even opens it.  This document, called ‘The Granite City Forest ‘Tree for Every Citizen’ Programme Tullos Hill Community Woodland’ dated December 2011, is a highly-biased document which ignores important issues (soil matrix, causes and cost of the previous failure).

Even its cover is of dubious veracity – it shows an unrecognisable Tullos Hill – one that is inexplicably beige and barren looking.  Anyone assuming that was what the hill looked like could have been forgiven for thinking the tree scheme had some merit.  When was this photo taken?  Was it photo-shopped?

This 70 page report will be the subject of a separate article shortly.  However, the three community councils and thousands of protestors against the cull, and the Scottish SPCA, Animal Concern Advice Line, and other recognised animal welfare organisations opposed to the cull will be interested to know that they constitute a ‘vociferous  minority’ , and that objections have basically died out.

There was indeed a lull in protests – as no one knew there was a cull in progress, and we had been told the report to the Forestry Commission was in a draft stage.  Unaware that action was urgently needed to counter the scheme, none was taken.  However, those who wrote and who received this report could not have easily ignored the considerable media coverage.

One thing this report does do is acknowledge that the deer move around, and visit St Fitticks.  This migration from Tullos, coupled with the migration to/from Kincorth, indicate that the deer were able to move around and graze at different locations over a very large area – thus the claim they could not be supported in their numbers on Tullos Hill – which they had been for decades – certainly looks like more propaganda.

The City’s claims that the law forced them to shoot deer because of the size of the acreage are discredited. If the SNH ever issued an enforcement order on Aberdeen City to shoot the deer, it has never been produced.

 The trees are thought by some experts to be highly unlikely to grow in this area

Readers will be less than pleased to know ‘deer control measures’ are planned for St Fitticks.  Aberdeen Voice writers and the public have photographs of the tree tubes at St Fitticks.  They are virtually all intact  – except where clearly vandalised by people (unless deer have taken to drinking cans of lager and smoking).

Most of the tubes on this often flooded plain adjacent to the North Sea and subject to its strong winds and salt sprays are choked with weeds.  None of these trees has flourished.  Photographs also show some tubes, wholly undamaged, to be completely empty.  The trees are thought by some experts to be highly unlikely to grow in this area, possibly even less so than on Tullos.

How someone within the City co-wrote such an inaccurate report and submitted it to support the tree scheme without it being approved by elected officials (many of whom clearly would have objected to much of the contents) is a mystery in need of investigation.

However, how CJ Piper & Co., already paid at least £44,000 for furthering the tree scheme and  which will make money from the scheme is allowed to create such a biased piece in his financial favour is potentially a matter for Audit Scotland.  So much for robust internal reporting.

What have we seen in the mainstream press lately about the cull and the tree scheme?  Two cases in point come to mind which will shortly be considered.

One concerns a press release from Animal Concern Advice Line, advising 23 deer were shot dead, and pointing out that the officially reported shooting times, supplied by the council, indicated that shooting took place during hours when using rifles on the hill would have been illegal.

The Press & Journal however reported that 23 deer had been shot, and the cull was necessary because of new legislation (this is still quite debatable, however often the City repeats this line).  This story also dismissed one important issue in a single line, claiming there was ‘no legal requirement’ for the council to put up warning signs over the shooting going on during the evenings on Tullos Hill.  Does that seem right to anyone?

3.  The Shooting:  Aberdeen  Ignored its own Risk Register despite Lethal Risks

City officials (perhaps Pete Leonard, perhaps Ranger Ian Tallboys included) created a risk register for the cull and tree planting.  Three separate issues admitted, quite obviously, that to have people shooting on the hill created a lethal risk to ‘non-target species’ (ie you and I) as well as a variety of animals.  This register said warning signs were to be placed at each and every entrance to the hill to let people know there was a lethal risk.

In the end, what was the text of the signs – signs which virtually no one claims to have seen at the entrance points? A Freedom of Information Request reply insists there were warning signs on all the entrance points which read:  “Warning – Forestry Operations in Progress.” 

 would you take your family on a hill where a person or persons were shooting powerful rifles at animals?

All the legal and animal experts are in agreement that such signs have nothing whatsoever to do with telling the public there is risk of getting shot.  Regular hill visitors  are compiling lists of times and dates they were on the hill – for many protestors were specifically looking for the warning signs which normally would be up in such a situation.  There is photographic evidence indicating no such signs were up at entrances.

However, the point is the text used warning signs  (wherever they may have been posted) were wholly inadequate, and it is only by luck some young motor-biker, pet, or other person wasn’t injured.

You might happily take your spouse and children on a hill if a man was working a digger or if people were digging holes and planting trees:  but would you take your family on a hill where a person or persons were shooting powerful rifles at animals?  This disregard for public safety and non-compliance with a risk register  calls for an independent investigation.

How such a blatant lack of proper procedures was allowed must be examined – and all the evidence points to the cull backers wanting the public to be kept in ignorance for political reasons – even with a life-threatening risk.  One missed shot, one startled hunter, one sudden movement of a startled deer and we could have had a shot off target – with a bullet travelling a quarter of a mile a distinct possibility.  Someone must be brought to book, and legal action considered.

So the mainstream press went with the line that ‘warning signs were not a legal requirement’.  The smallest bit of common sense dictated that they were.  But this was not the only instance of the press favouring the Council’s position.  In an earlier, less serious situation, Aileen Malone was quoted in the Press & Journal as claiming ‘only about one’ person in Aberdeen wrote to her objecting to the cull.

Aberdeen Voice soon documented a minimum of half a dozen people contacting her by email and including their Aberdeen postal addresses as well.  Malone apologised for ‘accidentally deleting’ one such email.  However, when supplied evidence contradicting their earlier story, the P&J declined to print a correction.

Here is more on a recent story its sister paper, the Evening Express, printed.

4.  How and Why did a letter from the Scottish SPCA about 2 dead deer in 2010 become a 2012 story?

An Evening Express headline of  16 April 2012 read,

“Deer found dead ahead of Aberdeen’s controversial cull Animals ‘starved to death’ on tree-planting site.” 

The electronic story summary online led people to believe that deer were starving at the present date, and therefore it was OK to kill the deer.   And when exactly did these two deer die?  2010.  Indeed, that is ‘ahead’ of the cull.

How did the letter quoted in the article between the City and the Scottish SPCA come to be released during a time it transpired the cull was covertly taking place?  Who contacted the Evening Express?  Why was such an old story turned into a new story, and how did the original electronic version happen to omit any reference to this story being old?

For that matter, the reason for the deer’s deaths was not actually investigated at the time according to sources.

This attempt to manipulate the press and therefore manipulate public opinion should never have happened

The City is now meant to supply the letters between themselves and the Scottish SPCA under a new FOI request.

The City is also asked to identify which person contacted the press with this letter, for it certainly was not supplied to the news by the Scottish SPCA.

The City Council’s information officers are saying there is such a volume of  correspondence concerning Tullos Hill and the Deer cull with the Scottish SPCA that they cannot possibly dig out all the letters for me.  The Scottish SPCA’s spokesperson has assured Aberdeen Voice this claim of a large volume of correspondence on the subject is without foundation.

This attempt to manipulate the press and therefore manipulate public opinion should never have happened.  If it was done with the knowledge or involvement of a paid City employee or an elected City Councillor, then appropriate disciplinary procedures should be invoked.

Whoever at the City or with access to the City’s correspondence with the Scottish SPCA should be identified, an investigation held, and the person or persons dealt with appropriately for this ham-fisted propaganda.

5.  The Scottish SPCA Told Pete Leonard Why The Cull Was Wrong (and possibly illegal)

One Scottish SPCA letter, this time not from two years ago like the letter leaked to the Evening Express, sums up some of the key points against the cull quite nicely.

A letter of 28 March 2012 (when sadly about  one dozen deer were already killed) informs the city that Scotland’s Animal welfare charity, the Scottish SPCA, is still very much against the cull ‘unless there are genuine animal welfare or public safety concerns which justify such action.  We do not believe that such concerns exist in this case.’  The letter also said:-

“We are sure you are aware that the licence to shoot deer out of season can only be granted under the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996… to prevent serious damage to unenclosed woodland.  As no woodland currently exists, we would not expect the  Council to be in a position to legally conduct such a cull at present.” 

At the alarmed animal welfare groups’ advice, this blatant blackmail was rejected

The city says again and again it is obliged to shoot the deer for population reasons due to new legislation – even though it is fully understood by both sides the deer are moving across at least three areas – therefore making the city’s claim that Tullos  Hill isn’t big enough to support the deer a nonsense.

The fact the deer have lived on the hill – sorry HAD lived on the hill for some 70 years without massive population explosion issues.  The bottom line is this Scottish SPCA letter says

“…we are not aware of any existing welfare concerns for the current herd of approximately thirty roe deer that inhabit Tullos Hill and have done so for many years.”

Those who have followed this sorry saga for the past year will recall the city’s blackmail bid to get the public to come up with £225,000 in order to save the deer.  At the alarmed animal welfare groups’ advice, this blatant blackmail was rejected.  (What kind of precedent would have been set?)

The city again changed tack, and said even if the public did pay, they would still shoot deer for the nonexistent trees (which as per earlier reports will somehow grow in poor soil on one of the windiest spots in the city – where they have failed to grow before).

Why was the public meant to come up with the arbitrary sum of £225,000 in less than two months?  It was to be used for fencing  and other deer-proofing measures. However, the use of tree guards was discounted by an ACC person named ‘Richard’ and the SNH – because tree guards have ‘visual impact’.

We were supposed to surrender a quarter of a million pounds to save our deer so the  scheme to plant ‘a tree for every citizen’ could remain the ‘cost neutral’ scheme that Councillor Aileen Malone and others maintained it was.  The main selling feature of the tree scheme was that it would not cost us a penny.  In fact, a FOI request asking about why the scheme had to be adhered to earned the reply:

“Creating these woodlands close to urban areas will deliver on all these points, with the additional benefit of being created at no cost to the City Council due to the levels of external funding being obtained to deliver the project.  This demonstrates that the Tree for Every Citizen is not taking resources from other services within the City.”

The fact of the matter is this scheme has cost you and I a great deal so far…

6.  £167,000 Cost of Killing Deer and Planting Trees – Minimum Cost to Date

The FOI assurance that the scheme will not cost any money and that corporate sponsors will fund it in part has not exactly proved to be accurate.  Firstly, and for obvious reasons, few businesses could be found to pay for the killing of a beloved herd of nearly tame deer.

Magically, the fences which the public were initially asked to pay for to save the deer  have been erected, both permanent and temporary ones (indeed, the only ‘forestry operations’ sign the author ever saw was on a temporary enclosure deep within the hill – which would have been of little warning to anyone getting that deep into the land).  Also, the tree guards suddenly lost their ‘visual impact’ and can be seen on the few trees planted to date.

Much of the gorse which homed and fed a variety of creatures has been cleared, and the hill today now resembles the barren photograph taken months earlier.  Leaving aside the pollution, waste and soil matrix of this cleared area, we the taxpayer have paid £480 per week to clear this land.

 As the bookkeepers managed to ignore the £43,800 – what else has been omitted?

The city won’t tell you who or which company did this work – even though the contractor was paid with public funds.  The city says they should not be identified.

The information Commissioner may well have different ideas.

Subtracting the £43,800 which the city had to return for the phase one planting failure, then we have spent a minimum of £167,000 to date.   However, it is not clear that all the cost are recorded on the sheet.  As the bookkeepers managed to ignore the £43,800 – what else has been omitted?

One glaring omission is one of the few items showing funds coming in:  many of the dead deer carcasses were sold to a ‘licensed game dealer’.  The city will be asked to disclose how much revenue it received for destroying these 34 or 35 deer.

Readers might like to know that ‘CJ Piper & Co’ is not a company listed with Companies House.  There is however well-known forestry agent Chris Piper.  The city claim not to have any details for CJ  Piper & Co – despite naming this entity as a payee for c. £44,000 on the spreadsheet of expenses and income for the scheme, and despite writing a paper jointly with it.

Finally, we do not yet know what type of herbicides the scheme’s supporters plan to spray over the hill for the next few years or what the cost will be.  There seems to be no budget provision for this, and it is unclear that local residents, school authorities and industry have been asked for their consent.

7.  Enough is Enough:  Recommendations

This catalogue of bad decisions, fiscal irresponsibility, constantly changing stories, withheld information, expense, and not least destruction of a deer herd while risking peoples’ lives has gone far enough.  There must be no cull again.  The tree scheme should be investigated from inception to current day by wholly independent soil and tree experts (we know the soil is extremely poor for a variety of reasons).  The finances and the empty promise of a ‘cost neutral’ scheme likewise need to be gone over by independent experts.

It is very easy to identify the drivers of this scheme; they are Aileen Malone (former convener of the Housing & Environment Committee), Pete Leonard, Director of Housing, and Ranger Ian Tallboys.  In order to further this scheme, the public has been misled over finances, fed propaganda on deer welfare, blackmailed for funds, and had their safety compromised over several months while shooting was in progress.

The Information  Commissioner will be asked to look into some of the FOI discrepancies

Audit Scotland should be asked to examine the finances, the manner in which consultants and contractors were selected, and whether CJ Piper should or should not have been involved in co-authoring a report when there was a clear financial interest for them in the report’s contents.

The Information  Commissioner will be asked to look into some of the FOI discrepancies.  This the author will see to shortly.  To those in positions of power – and to citizens who can contact their elected representatives I would suggest calling for the following:-

The relevant internal and external audit/risk bodies should launch investigations.   Audit Scotland should look at the finances, and ACC’s Risk / Audit Committee should have an enquiry.

We are talking about an unnecessary risk to public safety, and those responsible should now resign their posts and apologise to the public without further delay.

The Standards Commission and the City’s Audit & Risk Committee should likewise examine the scheme from start to the current date to evaluate the conduct of those who were involved in supporting the scheme.

All further culls should be called off.  Plans to spray herbicides for years need to be halted or at the least scrutinised and presented to the public who live and work in the area.

If there is a case to be made for prosecutions over these issues (not least the risk register being ignored), then the legal authorities should be made to investigate.

If the trees can grow without further culls, fine. If trees cannot (and remember the main culprits were weeds and soil for the previous failure – there is far more evidence of these factors than for deer browsing), then it is time for Councillor  Cooney’s proposal for Tullos to be a meadowland (gently enhanced rather than having its ecosystem further eradicated) should be resurrected. It mysteriously was shot down in part due to Pete Leonard’s  position on the meadowland scheme.

Crucially,  we must allow this herd to grow again – if it can.

Finally, lessons must be learnt. the Scottish SPCA and other animal welfare entities, Community Councils and the public must never receive such shoddy treatment ever again.

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

Old Susannah No 82: Arts and Craftiness

 Aberdeen City, Satire and Humour  No Responses »
Jun 222012
 

Voice’s Old Susannah comments on current events and enlightens us with definitions of some tricky terms with a locally topical taste. By Suzanne Kelly.

dictionary

Tally Ho!  I’m not sure if this past week was more vibrant than it was dynamic or more dynamic than it was vibrant – but it’s been good on the whole.  Gray’s School of Art degree and fashion shows took place, I went along to the Sunday movie at The Moorings, and there were lots of cocktails.

RGU was interesting; for some reason just as we arrived, I was puzzled as my friends abruptly scarpered in different directions.  I was told later that I’d been standing next to HoMalone, and my friends didn’t want to see what would happen next. Not that I would have confronted her; I would have said “Hello!  My deer!”, or asked her where she got the fluorescent mustard coloured blazer she wore at the vote count.

She was probably searching for the Gray’s designer who made clothing out of fur, or the jeweller using bone, or so I would imagine (NB there were some imaginative uses of fake fur on show – why use dead animals for decorative reasons?).

Before the RGU fashion show, Gray’s Head of School made a speech, concluding that Gray’s and RGU were firmly behind Aberdeen’s bid for the highly coveted ‘City of Culture’ title.  Hooray!

There were several interesting artists and designers on show; I particularly liked jewellery by Sarah Sidwick.  In a written statement Sarah claimed:-

“Body image dissatisfaction is on the rise, with more pressure than ever before put on both women and men to obtain society’s projected ideal beauty…. I believe we should all start taking the growing problem of bodily image dissatisfaction more seriously and question our view on what makes someone ‘beautiful’.

We all have different ideas of what is beautiful I guess.  As long as someone’s not to fat or too thin, or too tall or short, and doesn’t show any sign of ageing – and wears lots of designer gear, it’s safe to say they are beautiful.

For anyone who likes to watch a movie without interruptions or without listening to other people’s mobiles going off every five minute, I’d suggest the Sunday Movie at the Moorings Bar.  The lights are dimmed around 4pm-ish, the doors are locked, and the audience is quiet.  Last week’s movie was called ‘Dazed & Confused’.

Old Susannah found some of the film’s references difficult to follow, and was puzzled that the young people in it seemed to smoke roll-up cigarettes with excessive frequency; I can’t imagine why.

There were a few occasions for cocktails this week, and my first visit to 99 Back Wynd won’t be my last.  There is a ‘Painkiller’ cocktail which is delicious, and they have violet-flavoured alcohol, which I love.

  Saturday 23 June is nearly upon us, and the biggest party Union Terrace Gardens has ever seen will be on

Possibly best of all is that BrewDog is offering cocktails.  Beer cocktails.  BrewDog craft beer  cocktails.    These spirit-lifting cocktails include Pretty in Punk, Saint’s Delight, Hardcore Pornography and Orange Tide.   A girl in BrewDog had selected about 20 bottles of different beers to take away; she told me it was a birthday present for a friend.  I told her my birthday is 9 July.

And I launched an eBook this week.  It’s a very short work entitled ‘Old Susannah’s Handbook of Modern Manners – Part One’.  It is available on kindle via Amazon.  The introduction is available to read for free, but after that it gets a tiny bit sarcastic.  It is yours for about £1.90, and should I sell any copies, then 20% of any profit will be split between four animal welfare/sanctuary groups. No doubt the City of Culture Bid Committee will be interested.

It can be found at http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008C81M1I

Seeing as the City of Culture is the topic on everyone’s lips (why, I can barely sleep!), I will include a few relevant definitions.  Before that, just a reminder that Saturday 23 June is nearly upon us, and the biggest party Union Terrace Gardens has ever seen will be on.  Hope to see you there.

But amid all this fun, the Freedom of Information people wrote to me this afternoon about some of my deer cull questions.  It seems that despite public observation to the contrary, warning signs were posted at each and every entrance during the weeks the shooting took place.

The signs said ‘forestry operations’ were in effect.  Obviously, forestry operations meant hunters were shooting rifles and a lethal risk existed.  By the way, 23 deer were shot, none were just wounded (so the city says), and all were ‘clean kills’.  However, to shoot 23 deer, 33 rounds of ammunition were fired.

I put my hands up (especially if confronted with a high-powered rifle) – but if 23 animals were shot instantly dead, doesn’t this mean an extra 10 shots were taken?  Did it take more than one shot to kill the poor (hand-fed in some cases) creatures?  Did any bullets miss – therefore meaning there could have been some serious accidents?

Feel free to ask the City yourself about the cull, the correct warning signs as to lethal risk, and the 33 rounds needed to kill 23 deer.

Now onwards with a few definitions

Culture: (noun, Eng) 1.  the collective qualities, traits, idiosyncrasies that give an area, a group or a nation its individuality.

A Ms D Morgan sent a letter to the Press & Journal last week; in it she noted that Aberdeen has closed nearly a dozen of its museums and/or sold collections over the past decade and a bit.  We recently flogged off some of the Thomas Glover House artefacts as well.  And about time.

No one is interested in history, old buildings or old paintings; people want to see sharks in fish tanks, skulls covered with diamonds, and granite webs.  The sooner we can get more vibrant and dynamic the better.  This is how it works.

  • Sell off your old stuff.  Sell old trees for lumber in Hazlehead Park and use the money to plant trees on Tullos Hill (irrespective of the existing ecosystem, peoples’ wishes, or the fact the trees won’t grow).
  • Shoot the deer that lived on the hill and sell their carcasses for game meat.
  • Let your old buildings either rot, get burnt down, or just sell them.  Then you have cash in hand.
  • Close museums; throw any books you find in Marischal College’s basement museum into a skip.
  • Buy some trendy new art, and get lots of consultants in.
  • Build new venues, even if the existing venues have to be subsidised by the taxpayer.
  • Borrow lots and lots of money over what you got by selling the family silverware.
  • Give money to consultants.
  • Borrow more money.
  • Set up some private companies, preferably with the established quangos which you’ve helped to set up.
  • You will need more money.  Cut funds, stop benefits, close schools, pressure libraries.
  • Ask arts practitioners in the area what they want, and ignore those who are politically awkward, not dependent on you for funding, or who want a slice of the new pie.
  • Set up lots of meetings, think-tanks, new groups.
  • Select a random area of the city to be the quarter for arts.  Impose this new geography.  Then sit back and wait for the public’s grateful thanks, and grants to roll in, and tourists in their thousands to appear, hopefully generating the £122,000,000 you promised people your granite web and new ideas would bring in each year.  If you build it, they will come.

I do not think Aberdeen can be rivalled in its ambition.

City of Culture: (noun, mod. English) title bestowed upon a UK/European City by vote. 

The irreverent magazine ‘Private Eye’ has previously pointed out how Liverpool, previous City of Culture, spent a great deal of money on events which sadly people weren’t sophisticated enough to appreciate or support, and wasted a fortune.  But Valerie  Watts, our Chief Executive, came from Derry.  Derry won City of Culture, and she wants another similar victory here!

Only a minority of negative people in Derry think that money was wasted on this award.  £12  million or so was needed for Derry’s ‘Millennium Way’.  If you and I haven’t heard of it, it is because we are uncultured.    Here is some criticism of what I am sure was a brilliant idea:-  http://www.lurganmail.co.uk/news/local/city-of-culture-not-a-priority-1-3761381

But suddenly as I read these old stories, everything fell into place for Old Susannah as she remembered one of the huge white elephants of Liverpool.  Actually, it was not a white elephant…

We have seen some of our quangos and LibDem / SNP politicians desperate to build a giant granite web.  I can now reveal the reason we are desperate for the giant web is that a city of culture must have:  A Giant Spider.

City movers and shakers in Liverpool,  (home of the Beatles, Echo  & the Bunnymen, classical performers, painters and sculptors) decided to ignore all that art nonsense and get really cultural – with a giant spider called ‘the princess project’.  The spider’s cost was nearly £2,000,000.  What a bargain!

Why DaVinci, Mozart, Bach, Turner and so on ignored the cultural importance of a giant spider is beyond me; I guess we’re just more enlightened now.  But ‘Liverpool Culture Company (in turn funded by the city, the Arts Council and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport) decided to get a giant Japanese spider.  I guess Godzilla, Mothra and Rodan were not available at the time.

Who were the creative geniuses behind this entire ‘city of culture’ invention?  Who wanted a giant spider above classical arts and indeed before serving the needs of the Liverpudlian citizen?

The entire concept of a Department of Culture, Media & Sport was an ancient dream we can thank Tony Blair for.  One of the first Ministers for this crucial cabinet post was the talented David Mellor.  He was famous for having his toes sucked by Antonia de Sancha, as reported widely at the time.

Was it a Shakespearean scholar, Tom Stoppard or another luminary who helped devise this spider scheme and run Liverpool’s year?  Indeed:  it was creator of Brookside Close, Phil Redmond, who was Liverpool Culture Company’s artistic director. To quote Wikipedia, which is quite accurate on this story, Redmond said :-

“At £1.5m I think it’s (the giant spider) actually cheaper than (booking) Macca (Sir Paul McCartney) and it has got us on the front of the South China Morning Post. So it’s good value for money.  However, the project has come in for criticism [whatever for? – Old Susannah asks] in some quarters: the UK mental health charity Anxiety has highlighted the potentially traumatic effect of the production upon those suffering with arachnophobia, and the TaxPayers’ Alliance has called the artwork an “outrageous waste of taxpayers’ money”.

The vast majority of the public response was … that “The Liverpool Princess’ performance was the highlight of the city’s Capital of Culture 2008 celebrations.”

I can well believe that was the highlight, remembering some of the other non-events Private Eye covered.  There were cancelled performances, people giving work to acquaintances, and all sorts of dubious goings-on.

None of that could happen here however.

Patronage: (noun) to support, pay for or otherwise assist an artist, project, sportsman, etc.

In a far distant past, the fine artist was paid by the rich to portray the wealthy patron in a favourable light.  The artists were obliged to do as they were told, but often they left clues behind in their work to say how they really felt about their patron (stone masons would leave small caricatures behind in the back of their work).

Later, the role of patron switched to the State.  If your artwork pleases the government, you get grants.

For instance the man who was paid £9,000 (or so) to paint our Lord Provost told the press:

”I think he ( Provost Stephens) is a really nice man.” 

Well, he would say that wouldn’t he? It’s not like he feels any obligation to the system that commissioned him; or that would mean we have the state controlling what artists do – heaven forbid! – whereas the negative, fault-finding, duo of Anthony Baxter and Richard Phinney were denied grants from Creative Scotland, as ‘no one would be interested in a documentary about Donald Trump and the Menie Estate’.

Thankfully, by letting the government dish out money to the artists they like is that we can try to prevent another ‘You’ve Been Trumped’ from getting made.  I wonder how many people with similar projects which were turned down didn’t find the resources to realize their artistic visions.

Thankfully, we will never find out.  Another benefit is we don’t have to think too much about what is good or bad art – the state chooses for us.  Result!

Old Susannah has already been a bit longer-winded than she had intended; apologies.

Next week:  No Creative Scotland commissions for me.

Lush Prize To Stamp Out Animal Testing Is Launched

 Community, Information  No Responses »
Jun 222012
 

Campaigning cosmetics company Lush has, this week, announced the creation of the first ever Lush Prize to help bring an end to animal testing in the wake of the continuing failure to ban these practices. With thanks to Lush Aberdeen.

lush3pic
The Lush Prize will reward groups, or individuals, working in the field of cruelty-free scientific research, awareness-raising and lobbying.

The prize has been created by Lush in partnership with Ethical Consumer to ensure that the award process is impartial, rigorous and comprehensive in scope.

Its £250,000 annual prize fund – the biggest prize in the alternative testing sector – seeks to focus pressure on safety testing for consumer products in a way which complements projects already addressing alternatives to the animal testing of medicines.

The Lush Prize was launched at a media breakfast briefing at The Ivy in London on 19th June.  Co-founder of Lush, Mark Constantine OBE, who chose the timing and venue to make a very specific point, said:

 “Our customers want safe cosmetics tested without the involvement of animals.   21 years ago, here in this room, almost to the hour, we launched a policy that promised that there would be no animal testing of our product or ingredients.  We went further and worked with our suppliers to stop the use of any animals for any of their safety testing.  Sadly animal testing for the cosmetics industry is still widespread.  In fact new legislation has increased it.

“In 21 years a lot has changed, but still much of the cosmetic industry cannot guarantee safe cosmetics tested without the involvement of animals.  So here at Lush we are trying another tack.  Today we are launching a prize worth a quarter of a million pounds and we hope to fund the Eureka moment when a breakthrough is made to end animal testing of cosmetics forever.”

The Eureka element plans to make available the full £250,000 for a ‘proof of concept toxicity pathway study.’  This is for researchers working very specifically in the field of 21st Century Toxicology which seeks to understand ‘toxicity pathways’ at a fundamental level.

In years when no breakthrough event occurs, prizes of £50k each (to a total of £250k) will be awarded in the following categories:-

  • Science Prize –  the development of replacement non-animal tests
  • Training Prize –  training researchers in non-animal methods
  • Lobbying Prize –  policy interventions to promote the use of replacements
  • Public Awareness Prize –  raising public-awareness of ongoing testing
  • Young Researcher Awards –  to five post-graduates specialising in replacements research

Rob Harrison, editor of Ethical Consumer commented:

“In designing this Prize, we have spoken to lots of campaigners and researchers.  The reasons that animal testing is still widespread are complex. This is why the Prize, as well as having a breakthrough element, has five additional awards including prizes for lobbying regulators and training researchers in non-animal methods.

“By targeting significant new funds each year, at each of these key pressure points, the Prize hopes to make a real difference to replacing animal testing with effective alternative methods.”

The first Lush Prize Awards are scheduled to take place in London in November, 2012.  The winners will be chosen by a panel of high profile figures from the animal welfare world and scientific community.

Details of the nominees and the high profile awards panel for the Lush Prize will be released in the run up to November’s awards event.

For more information on the prize and for details on how to nominate your favourite projects visit http://www.lushprize.org/

Declan Michael Laird Interview

 Community, Featured, Information  No Responses »
Jun 142012
 

At age 18 Declan Michael Laird is getting a remarkable reception in Hollywood.  He is on a scholarship to the most prestigious acting school there is, he is playing football with celebrity expats, and he is having the time of his life.  Aberdeen Voice’s Suzanne Kelly catches up with Declan, and gets the gen on his story so far.

declanpic1
Declan answers the phone, and the first thing that comes up is weather.  Aberdonian readers don’t need me to tell them how this summer is going, but Declan’s interested.  “You’d be surprised – I do miss the damp weather sometime… the sun can get to you sometimes if you’re running around a lot.” he offers, “But I do love it, and I’m lucky.”

His voice is filled with enthusiasm (it sounds as if he is smiling and on the verge of laughing), and it should be.  He is in Hollywood pursuing a career as an actor.  Not bad for a teenager from Scotland.

I ask what he got up to today.

“I got up early, did some school work, then went to gym and tried to work out, then met friends for coffee – I’m off to class shortly.”

Class in this case being acting lessons at the Stella Adler Academy of Acting and Theatre.

“I was playing for  Greenock Morton FC and left school at 16 – I wanted to be  pro player.  I never thought about acting .  I was on a pro youth contract. 

“I came to Los Angeles on vacation, and there was a workshop at an acting school.  I was with my dad, and said I’d go in and give it a shot.  I’d never had the opportunity back home.  I went in and I loved it – I felt I had a knack for it – I did it, loved it, came home from LA and told my family that I wanted to give it a bash.  

“I got an agent in Glasgow and my first audition was for River City.   This was only a week or so in [to being signed by an agent], and I got the part. I’d never even been in the school play!  I did the audition the way I thought it should be done.  I got the call the next morning to say I got the part.”

“It was all amazingly sudden,” Declan tells me,

“I went to the first filming and decided this was what I wanted to do – the cameras, the actors, being on set was amazing.  Football, which had been my aim for 10 years, suddenly fell to the back.  I did a few short films back home with independent filmmakers. 

  he said, ‘You would be the first person since Robert De Niro to get this scholarship.’ 

“In December 2010 I got a call from Stella Adler School – (from Milton Justice who is an  Oscar-winner documentary maker; he was the man who took the workshop).  I had no idea I was doing the workshop in front of an Oscar winner – maybe that’s why I wasn’t as nervous as everyone else.  He said he was impressed, and there was a place if I wanted to go to LA.  

“I was signalling to my mum and she said it would be too expensive.  But I told him l’d speak to my parents and call back.  So I spoke to my parents, and called back to say we couldn’t really afford it.  He sort of laughed and said ‘we’re offering you the place,  it would be a full scholarship’.  Just as I was about to get my words out – I was speechless – he said, ‘You would be the first person since Robert De Niro to get this scholarship.’  – I thought I was being punked”.

Declan continues:

“So at that point there was only one thought – I was going to go.  So, fast forward  they wanted me in January – but I was still 17 –so  I came in August.”

Laird has a manger and an agent, not something that your average teenager winds up with after a few months in Hollywood by any standard, and work is coming in.

“I’ve just booked a film with award-winning director Stan Harrington ‘Lost Angels,’ which  starts filming this month.  I start in July – I’m excited about that.”

And from the tone of his voice, yes, he is.  There are other call-backs and opportunities which we discuss.  I look forward to watching where he’s going to next appear.

“I don’t even know the name, but there’s a movie being made in Scotland and the casting director’s wanting  to ’Skype’ with me to talk about.”   

There are other international prospects in the pipeline, and it will be interesting to see what choices Laird makes.

“It sounds far- fetched when I tell people.” Declan says of his experiences.

declanlairdfeat
Indeed, one of the reasons I wanted to get in touch was that his story sounded far-fetched to me when I’d first heard it from his father.  Parents do generally tend to exaggerate what their children are up to, but with hindsight what his father told me was understated compared to the facts.

We talk about football.

“The good thing is I’m playing football as well .   Vinnie Jones is the coach; there are a few guys from Hollyoaks.  A lot of British actors, models and singers are coming from the UK, and here there’s not a lot of opportunity to play. 

“Vinnie rounds up everyone he can who is able to play.  

“Mark Wright is out here making a documentary.  He plays in the team on Sunday, and the show filmed it – you’ll see me playing with Mark and Vinnie shouting at us.”

I ask about visits home – wouldn’t a teenager so far from home miss his friends and family?

“I’ve only been back once – I went back at Christmas.  It is difficult sometimes, but this is where  I want to be, and I’m very determined.”  I’m more than convinced of the determination by this point.  “ People think I’m about 25 – being here alone has matured me a lot.”

“Ross King has been really helpful – he does the Hollywood scoop.  He heard about me coming out here, got in touch.   When I first came I didn’t know anyone.  He’s introduced me to people, takes me to the studio – he’s been great.”

I come back around to football – after all there are just a few issues with Scottish football at present.   Would he still be following his team?

“I am a Celtic supporter.  I don’t watch all the games, but there is an Irish bar in Hollywood that  shows the  Old Firm games.  My brother is a Rangers supporter and my dad’s a Rangers supporter as well.” 

Not wanting to linger on Rangers’ future or any family football rifts, I get back to acting.“What roles appeal to you?” I ask as what must be a fairly predictable question. 

“A lot of people seem to think they can see me as a bad boy – could be to do with the accent.  But I like comedy – I like making people laugh.  But I’m open to everything.   All the good roles are the bad guys.”

 I can’t argue there, and think of De Niro’s ability to be a terrifying villain (the remake of ‘Cape Fear’ springs to mind) as well as his considerable gifts for comedy.  I have little doubt Laird will be another master of both.

Will he wind up another ‘Lohan’?  Will he be jaded before he’s hit twenty?  Will he keep up the enthusiasm and energy which will be essential to win roles and handle the ups and downs?  I think so – but I ask about it.

“My family are so supportive – you meet so many people out here whose family aren’t supportive.  You can be out of work;  you can be in work.  But they support me in every way they can.”

Declan’s keen to say hello to his friends and family

“Hello!” 

“If I could say a special thank you to Jim Sweeney, who lives in Inverclyde.  When I was first starting he helped so much and I really appreciate it.”

I ask Declan for any last thoughts.

“It is amazing what I’ve achieved in the last 8 months – the events I go to, the people I’ve met. I feel like it’s meant to be.  That  sounds cheesy – but I’m a great believer in things that are meant to be.”

  • Keep up to date with Declan on twitter at @DMLactor

Healthy Tullos Hill Deer Eradicated By Aberdeen Council

 Aberdeen City, Featured, Information  No Responses »
Apr 272012
 

Deer cull protestors were shocked to learn on 26 April that 22 deer on Tullos Hill have been slaughtered as a precursor to Aberdeen City Council’s controversial tree-planting scheme. A planned protest on Saturday 28 April will still go ahead. With thanks to Suzanne Kelly.

deershotpic
A Freedom of Information Request has revealed that 22 of the 29 deer which roamed Tullos Hill were shot on the orders of Aberdeen City Council.
Despite a 2400-signature petition, over 200 letters of protest and the objections of four local community councils, this cull has taken place.
The council argued that deer had to be slaughtered to advance its Tree for Every Citizen scheme, a Liberal Democrat election pledge staunchly supported by Councillor Aileen Malone.

Initially, a small number of deer were going to be killed each year, but the majority of the herd has been wiped out.

Opponents of the cull and the tree scheme included not only large numbers of local citizens and international objectors, but animal welfare organisations.

John Robins of Animal Concern Advice Line has been a very vocal opponent of the scheme and offered the services of consultants, at no cost, to show the city how to plant trees without a cull. The city refused this and other assistance. The SSPCA said when the cull was first announced that it was ‘abhorrent and absurd’ to kill these deer to protect trees which don’t yet exist.

Those who wanted the deer spared cite the following reasons

  • The consultation on tree-planting made no mention of a deer cull whatsoever, although it did mention rabbit fencing. It did not say that 89,000 trees were going to go on the hill, forever transforming its current meadow ecosystem should they actually grow. The cull was planned in November 2010 and this information was deliberately withheld from the public.
  • The trees are not likely to take. A government soil report says there is little topsoil and trees would be vulnerable to destruction from winds, which have been recorded gusting at over 90 mph. The hill overlooks the North Sea and salt spray is also likely to inhibit growth.
  • The previous attempt saw the city leave the trees unprotected from weeds, reportedly a main cause of the trees’ failure.
  • The city did not buy the recommended larger tree guards in a bid to save money, going against government recommendations for planting.
  • The scheme was, according to Councillor Malone, to be ‘cost neutral’. This is not the case. As well as £43,800 returned to the Forestry Commission for the previous failure, a consultant has been paid over £44,000 to date, and over £400 per day has been spent in recent weeks to clear the hill, a former de facto domestic and industrial waste tip, of rubble.
  • Gorse was cleared in huge quantities from the hill, removing habitat for a variety of birds and small mammals.

Suzanne Kelly, who has been a campaigner against the cull for over a year said,

“There is virtually no-one in this area who wants this scheme. To learn that 22 of 29 deer which roam several different areas in this part of town have been destroyed, despite the stated wishes of the residents, is contrary to the most fundamental principles of democracy,  and it is positively malicious.  We were organising a mock funeral this Saturday at 0930. This will still go ahead. Unfortunately, it is no longer a mock funeral.

“Ms Malone had silenced me and Andy Finlayson from addressing the Housing Committee she chairs; we had both wished to be heard and we represented large groups of people. She used a technicality to prevent open debate then. Ms Malone, I challenge you to a debate now, before the election, in public, at a location and time of your choosing. I will be there. 

“I urge everyone in Aberdeen who loved this hill and its deer, which had roamed for at least 70 years in peace, to think about who you are going to vote for next Thursday. If you support the Liberal Democrats, you are supporting this cull. 

“Finally, please come along on Saturday morning to our funeral protest.  It was initially intended to raise awareness, but now there is a real loss to mourn. These deer have been slaughtered for political vanity. They have not been slaughtered for their own benefit, a ridiculous claim the city seems to think the public will swallow. No-one suggested a cull was needed before the tree scheme came along. At the end of the day, I see this as a tragedy fuelled by ego, greed and money.

“Whatever the election results are, those who sanctioned, approved and carried out this gigantic cull have veritably ended the deer herd on this hill. If they think there will not be a thorough investigation, and considerable public anger, then they are greatly mistaken.

“I decided to run for the City Council in my home area of Torry/Ferryhill largely because of the situation on Tullos Hill. It sadly typifies the city’s disregard for the wishes of its people and its existing environment. If I succeed only in throwing a light on how this situation has been handled, then elected or not, I will have accomplished something.”

Ms Kelly has compiled a report on Tullos Hill, and together with Labour Councillor Neil Cooney, had been trying to save the hill as a meadowland.
The report can be found here: http://suzannekelly.yolasite.com/

Union Terrace Gardens – The Big Picture

 Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information, Opinion  No Responses »
Apr 062012
 

If you are of the opinion that the City Garden Project controversy was all about what flavour of city centre park Aberdeen should have – think again. There seems to have been a much bigger picture involved here, and the politics are murky.  Mike Shepherd writes.

The power of the print media in shaping opinion

utgsunsquarpic
The public referendum has been held, and the City Garden Project won by the smallest of margins: 52-48%. Feelings are still poisonous in the city, as it is clear that a marginal result was swung by dubious means.

On the City Garden Project side, unregistered groups spent a disproportionately large sum of money on campaign material, whereas the officially registered groups were restricted to spending about £8,000 only.

Some of the claims made by supporters of the City Garden Project were outrageous and substantially misleading. One newspaper advert is now being investigated by the Advertising Standards Authority.

Even Aberdeen Council were responsible for punting a justification for the City Garden Project with the questionable claim that a new park could create 6,500 new jobs in the city.

The local papers showed a bias in favour of Sir Ian Wood’s project and framed their reports to show one side in a much better light than the other (“Yes, vote for change” or “No, don’t vote for change”). Ludicrous claims were accepted uncritically – such as oil companies leaving Aberdeen if the scheme did not go ahead.

I had been advised by an expert that:

 “Newspapers are very powerful at shaping public opinion”

and:

 “You will need the support of a PR company during the campaign.”

utgscreenpic
It was very good advice, but in practice not something that a campaign group of limited influence and funds could realistically put in place. Yet, it was clear from canvassing in the street that the combined effort of relentless advertising, the glossy brochures and the press bias was having an effect.
Whereas many would stop and give me a considered analysis of how they would vote, a large minority were reflecting City Garden propaganda back at me, phrases recognizable from glossy brochures or Evening Express headlines.

Our society today is witnessing a battle between democracy and political lobbyists / PR companies. Out of this, democracy is not doing that well. It’s a shock to see this writ large in Aberdeen, but at least the Gardens Referendum result has made this crystal clear to any thinking person in the city.

Local politics

After two years of campaigning to keep the Gardens, I have been able to observe how local politics works. It is clear that the current council administration is very business friendly and they will tend to make decisions that primarily favour business interests. At just about every council meeting you will hear the phrase “Aberdeen is open for business.”

Local democracy commonly involves a conflict between what business wants and what is in the interests of the general public. For example, if Aberdeen Airport is allowed to land flights at night, Dyce residents will get woken up by the noise. The conflict between business and public interests came to the fore after the consultation on Sir Ian Wood’s scheme two years ago. Over 50 local businessmen wrote to the council asking for the result to be ignored:

‘due to misunderstanding of the project among the public’

and an ‘inability’ to appreciate its impact. The council – to their shame – did this. The current Council administration (an SNP / Lib Dem coalition) appears to favour business almost every time.

There are a number of reasons why business gets its own way with the council. Many councillors are instinctively business friendly and will tend to support projects that are favoured by local commercial interests. This is certainly true of the Conservatives on the council and of many councillors from the other parties too.

There is also a powerful business lobby. Businessmen make up two thirds of the Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Forum (ACSEF), a “public-private partnership that drives economic development in the region”. Funded by both Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Councils, ACSEF is a non-elected body that have been given a significant degree of control over local economic policy. There is no doubt that ACSEF exerts power and influence over the activities of both councils.

  advanced societies work by a system of checks and balances between moneyed interests and the public regard

ACSEF were involved with the City Garden Project in the early days and described it as one of their flagship projects. Two of the board members, including the Chairman Tom Smith, are directors of the Aberdeen City Garden Trust, the group that organised the architectural competition and who hope to take the project forward to completion.

Extensive networking appears to go on amongst the “great and the good”. Politicians, local businessmen, council officials and senior figures in local organisations turn up and meet at parties, functions, charity events and business meetings. One Freedom of Information request gives an indication of how much hospitality is provided to council officials for instance:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/76531/response/199821

To the worldly wise, this will not come as a surprise. However, advanced societies work by a system of checks and balances between moneyed interests and the public regard. This does not appear to be working too well in Aberdeen.

The SNP and the City Garden Project

The SNP have been intimately involved with the City Garden Project since its inception. Alex Salmond was present at the project launch  in 2008.
http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/933616

But only recently have both Alex Salmond and Callum McCaig, the SNP leader in the council, explicitly endorsed the City Garden Project.

Yet, the majority of SNP councillors have supported it throughout (the notable exception being Clr. Muriel Jaffray). This is clear from the voting records every time the project has come up for debate in the Council. The SNP support has been instrumental for the progress of the City Garden Project through successive council votes.

  Major businessmen such as David Murray, Brian Souter, Jim McColl and Martin Gilbert have now endorsed the SNP.

The SNP have a reputation for populist politics and it may seem surprising that they have embraced such a controversial project for the city. I believe that there is a much bigger picture here, and one that takes precedent over local politics. The SNP are essentially a single-issue party; they want independence for Scotland. The realpolitik of the SNP is that much of what they do is focussed towards this end.

A key aim for the SNP has been to secure the support of major business figures in Scotland. This is partly financial; the party has no natural source of funds apart from membership fees, but they are also trying to secure influence leading up to and beyond any independence date. Major businessmen such as David Murray, Brian Souter, Jim McColl and Martin Gilbert have now endorsed the SNP.

Sir Brian Souter, founder of the bus company Stagecoach, caused controversy when he donated £500,000 to the SNP in 2007. Shortly afterwards, the SNP dropped an election commitment to bus re-regulation, although they denied that there was any connection to Sir Brian Souter’s donation.

Sir Ian Wood has not given open support to the SNP, yet the SNP continue to court the billionaire’s favour. Not only has Alex Salmond given his own backing to the City Garden Project, the machinery of Government has also been used to bankroll the scheme.

Scottish Enterprise funded the public consultation two years ago and also allowed grant money to be used for the technical feasibility study. Although the public rejected Sir Ian Wood’s project in the consultation, it didn’t stop Scottish Enterprise from giving Aberdeen City Garden Trust £375,000 of public money from its available funds for major infrastructure projects.

Another niggly problem has been the concerns of Audit Scotland

The Scottish Government are keen to provide investment money for the project through TIF funding. Yet it has been established that the initial proposal did not rank very highly by comparison to other investment and infrastructure projects elsewhere in Scotland.

The Scottish Futures Trust, who carried out the ranking, has refused to make their calculations public in spite of Freedom of Information requests to do so. Another niggly problem has been the concerns of Audit Scotland, who have questioned the long term capability of the indebted Aberdeen Council to pay back a risky loan for the project.

The proposed use of valuable investment and infrastructure funds for something as trivial as building a new park is shocking. The business case is dubious and the council can’t afford the risk. Political considerations seem to have taken precedence to a strict business evaluation on the Aberdeen TIF case.

Sir Ian Wood discussed independence recently and gave an indication of what he wants from the Scottish Government:

“The Wood Group will not endorse a Yes or No vote on independence. But Sir Ian added: “What’s key is the extent to which our clients, and to some extent ourselves, anticipate that a Scottish Government would continue with a similar oil and gas policy to the UK.

“The suggestion right now, from the discussions I’ve heard, is that there’s a lot of overlap between the present Scottish Government’s thinking on the development of the oil and gas industry and the UK government’s thinking.”

He went on:

 “What’s important – and I think the First Minister realises this – is that they must provide as much clarity as possible over the next two years towards the vote in 2014, so that we minimise the uncertainty.”
http://www.scotsman.com/captains-of-industry-and-finance-join-clamour-for-clarity

I have no doubt that this will happen.

The SNP are hoping to secure a majority at the council elections on May 3rd. This is possible, but as a one-issue party they tend to do better in national elections than local elections. They are also heavily identified with the Union Terrace Gardens issue and this appeared to have cost them votes in the Scottish elections last year.
https://aberdeenvoice.com/2011/05/the-election-the-utg-effect/

If they do not get a majority, this raises the intriguing possibility of an administration run by a Labour-SNP coalition. The Lib-Dems are likely to see their vote collapse outside the West End of the city. The Labour group are vehemently opposed to the City Garden Project and it could be that a condition for agreeing to form a coalition is that the scheme is dropped.

The “Union” in Union Terrace Gardens refers to the union of the United Kingdom and Ireland in 1800. Perhaps it is ironic that the park has ostensibly become a pawn in the big game of Scottish independence. It would be immensely sad if this was the case. Aberdeen’s heritage could end up sacrificed for the sake of political wheeling and dealing.

This would not bode well for a future Scotland. As Paul Scofield, playing Thomas More, said in A Man For All Seasons:

“I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos.”

Letter To The Sane World – A UTG Overview

 Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information, Opinion  No Responses »
Feb 292012
 

Shakhaf Barak wrote to a friend highlighting the history behind the current referendum that is dividing the city. He has kindly allowed Voice to use it, almost verbatim as the deadline approaches for voting.

Dear Friend,
Here in Aberdeen there is a bitter referendum taking place, and it could go either way. Over 70,000 people have voted thus far, in a city of barely 212,000 souls, and both sides have reported each other to the police. Central to this story is a 250-year old city centre park, Union Terrace Gardens, and the billionaire oil tycoon seeking to redevelop it.

Union Terrace Gardens are similar to Edinburgh’s Princes Street Gardens, lying in the natural amphitheatre of the Denburn valley, the Denburn being a stream which flows right through the city, underground where it borders the Gardens. Much of Aberdeen’s best architecture was clearly envisaged to overlook this area.

The Gardens are home to a cluster of 260-year old elms trees that once formed part of the Corbie Haugh, a historic wood which ran through the valley. This is among the largest concentration of healthy mature elm trees in Europe, and they are reputed to have escaped Dutch Elm Disease, not only due to their isolation, but also because the pollution of the city has afforded some sort of protection from it.

Both the park and its beautiful Victorian toilets are Grade A-listed, and all of the trees are under preservation orders. Up until as late as 2003, the Gardens formed the centrepiece of Aberdeen’s Britain In Bloom entry, and they were truly stunning, but since then expenditure has all but ceased, and the toilets have been closed for several years.

In 2008 a local arts organisation, Peacock Visual Arts (PVA) was granted planning permission for an award-winning and sympathetically-designed arts centre to be built into the hillside of the Gardens. This would have meant felling a small number of trees but none of the elms. The design was universally acclaimed and it was hoped that this scheme would help regenerate interest in the Gardens.

Enter Sir Ian Wood, one of Scotland’s richest men, and chief of Wood Group PSN. Sir Ian decided that he’d like to redevelop the Gardens by building a five-storey bunker in their place, whilst covering over the adjoining railway line and urban dual carriageway, with the entire roof of this construction forming a flat civic square at street level. It was not entirely clear what would be installed in the bunker, although speculation was rife to say the least.

He offered the council £50m towards the cost of this project, which was mooted to cost £140m. This was possibly an optimistic figure since Union Square, a similarly sized shopping mall with none of the technical difficulties or prior excavation work, cost £250m to build. The council felt this offer was too good to refuse, but the some members of the public were up in arms.

Sir Ian decided to put the proposal out to public consultation and promised to walk away should the public reject it.

The ‘consultation’ was commissioned by Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future (ACSEF), a publicly-funded unelected QUANGO, and conducted by The BiG Partnership, Scotland’s largest PR company.

It many ways it resembled a marketing exercise. The bulk of participation was via a website, which asked several questions with a somewhat loaded feel to them. For technical reasons, the question on whether or not to proceed with the plan defaulted to a YES vote.

If, during completion of the questionnaire, any previously-given responses were subsequently amended, this again defaulted back to a YES vote. When the results were released, it became apparent from the comments sections that may people who had intended voting NO had instead been recorded as YES voters.

Over 10,000 people participated in the consultation, and In spite of it’s technical oversights, the public voted against the Civic Square proposal by 54%-46%, a healthy and significant majority. However the PR machine kicked in and somehow spun that the 202,000 people who had not participated possibly represented a silent majority in favour of this scheme.

  Critics described it as a cross between Tellytubby Land and a skate park

Sir Ian decided not to walk away, and the project went to a council vote. The council voted in favour of taking the plan forward at the expense of PVA who by that time had 80% of their £20m funding in place. It has subsequently been alleged that some of the PVA funding was diverted into the new project.

The BiG Partnership now re-launched the plans under a new name, The City Garden Project (CGP). It was claimed that the outcome of the public consultation was that the public were broadly in favour of a garden as opposed to a civic square. Any implication that they were actually in favour of preserving the existing gardens was ignored.

The interested parties now felt that the best option was to redevelop the Gardens by building a five-storey bunker in their place whilst covering over the adjoining railway line and urban dual carriageway, with the entire roof of this construction forming a new garden at street level.

The whole thing had an air of déjà vu.

This time it was decided to hold an international design contest, paid for with public money. Six designs were shortlisted from hundreds of entrants. One, The Granite Web, bore a striking resemblance to Civic Square concept, albeit with less concrete and more greenery. Critics described it as a cross between Tellytubby Land and a skate park.

The local press heavily promoted the Granite Web design from the outset of the contest, leading with it on their front page and providing it with more photo coverage than the other designs. It was almost as though it had been ordained.

The public voted, and spoiled ballots aside, all indications were that The Winter Garden design proved the most popular. An independent poll confirmed this and put The Monolith in second place.

Tellingly both of these designs retained much of the topology of the existing Gardens. Word on the street was that The Granite Web was not a popular choice, but we’ll never know for sure, because a decision was taken not to release the results of the so-called public vote to the public.

It was then announced that the winner of the private-public vote would be put forward to the selection panel, along with another design. The self-appointed selection panel consisted of Sir Ian, some other influential people from the oil industry, an architectural consultant on the project payroll, and a councillor who backed the project.

The two designs discussed were the acknowledged public favourite, The Winter Garden, and you’ve guessed it, the joker in the pack, The Granite Web. When the panel announced the result, it should have come as no surprise to anyone that they had chosen The Granite Web, yet there was a shocked silence, and even those had come out in favour of the redevelopment initially appeared bemused if not downright confused.

The original Civic Square was mooted to cost £140m, with £50m coming from Sir Ian, £20m from the private sector, and the rest to be borrowed through a Tax Incremental Funding (TIF) scheme. Any over-run would be covered by the council (read local taxpayer) .

Only £5m of the private sector contribution has materialised thus far, but there has been an announcement that The Granite Web would be significantly less expensive to build than the previously-envisaged, but somewhat less complex, civic square. Sir Ian has offered to personally fund up to £35M of any cost over runs, should they occur.

The TIF proposal cheerfully bends all the guidelines of TIF funding. TIF is intended to be used to redevelop brownfield sites, with the loan being repaid over a 25 year period through increased rates recouped from any businesses setting up in the redeveloped area. The city council had already approved planning permission for two new industrial estates on the outskirts of town, under the business case for the TIF funding, these new estates become part of the TIF zone, so in The Granite Web’s case, sections of the TIF zone are located several miles away from the actual redeveloped area.

The predictions are for 6,500 jobs and £122m annual revenue to the local economy, all based on the new industrial estates, which have no obvious linkage to The Granite Web, operating at full capacity. Even if one were to accept that any new jobs could be somehow attributed to The Granite Web, the figure of 6,500 seems unlikely given that the London Olympics is only projected to create 3,500 jobs.

Either way, the setup feels a bit shaky; the truth is that these jobs and their associated revenue will accrue with or without The Granite Web.

By this time, councillors seemed to be getting edgy and unwilling to green-light the project, so they decided to hold a public referendum. Any group wishing to campaign was required to adhere to an £8,000 spending limit, and for this they were provided with 300 words of text in the voting pack.

The packs went out, but unfortunately some of the Retain lobby’s statements were mangled due to a ‘computer error’. The voting packs were closely followed by a big money public relations mail bombing campaign by The BiG Partnership promoting The Granite Web. Publicity materials went through every letter box, pro Granite Web articles dominated the press, and adverts were played around the clock on the local radio stations.

Apparently this expenditure was permitted by virtue of being funded by an ‘unregistered’, and as yet anonymous, campaign group – whatever that means! I guess it’s a bit like not having to pay tax because your parents never applied for a birth certificate, who knows? By this point, things were becoming surreal to say the least.

The referendum closes on 1 March and it’s a bitter fight that has divided the city. For example, an oil company boss has made a complaint to the police alleging mail hacking and cyber bullying. The police claim they are taking this allegation seriously. There have also been two arrests possibly related to claims of vote-rigging, but ultimately no one was charged.

The town has gone berserk and it’s civil war all over Facebook. It’s as if we’re all experiencing a really, really bad shared dream. I just dread to think what we’ll all be waking up to on Saturday morning.

Old Susannah No. 67 – Mythinformation

 Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Information, Opinion, Satire and Humour  No Responses »
Feb 102012
 

Old Susannah wades in with her chainsaw rattling in the direction of Union Terrace Gardens, but the elms need not fear, she is only out to cut through the misinformation presented as ‘myth busting’ by the City Garden Project.

dictionary
By Suzanne Kelly.

Old Susannah has been busy with Union Terrace Gardens this past week, like so many of us.  Another few short weeks, and the people will have voted one way or the other as to whether or not our environment, heritage and common good land are better served up with concrete ramps or not.

Then I can get back to the important work of singing the praises of our elected officials, unelected quangos and council officers, and local millionaires.

Before I get down to the Gardens situation, I thought I’d look back at all the wonderful artwork that the City’s children sent in for the Christmas time art competition and event in the gardens, organised and funded in large part by the Bothwell family.

Hundreds of children sent in their artwork, and at this chilly time of the year with Christmas past, they make a cheerful reminder of a great day, and what it’s like to be a child again.  And each and every one of the childrens’ artwork exceeds by miles the A3 takaway flyer sent by a group of anonymous business people telling you we must vote for the granite web.

Do have a look – you will be glad that you did.
http://oldsusannahsjournalchildrenschristmasartwork.yolasite.com/

On with some definitions then.

Propaganda:  (noun) Material, slogans, misinformation designed to advance a particular point of view often by discrediting or ignoring opposition.

My email inbox is bursting this week with details of employers who are sending their employees all of the leaflets, letters and testimonials which support the garden project.  Most of these are written in the names of associations or groups which have – but crucially do not declare in the literature in question – a member or members who are directly involved with promoting the scheme.  This is very clever indeed.

An employee wants to be told by their boss how they should think and want and vote.  It would therefore be most unfortunate if the employees were given some way to read the many arguments against going ahead with an undefined project with an undefined budget using an as-yet untested in the UK financial borrowing mechanism with a debt-ridden city council borrowing money.

Let us hope therefore that suitable precautions are taken to prevent employees reading the literature from different groups available at the following:-
http://oldsusannahsjournal.yolasite.com/

Myth:  (noun) work of fiction, often including gods, goddesses and challenges and tasks.

Not since the rainbow bridge of Asgard joined heaven and earth, not since the legend of Hercules and his impossible labours has there been a tale as far-fetched as that of the granite web that launched 6,500 jobs and paved the streets annually with £122,000,000.  Sure, it may look more like one of the circles of Hades or the Minotaur’s maze, but the web is already passing into myth.

Those clever people who bring us this gift from the gods are worried we mortals can’t undertand the benefits, and are misunderstanding (or mythunderstanding) their benevolent intentions.  They’ve written a handy guide (something called a ‘blog’) The City Garden Project – The Myths, dispelled’ which can be found at:-
http://www.voteforcitygarden.co.uk/blog/17-the-city-garden-project-the-myths-dispelled

And to its words in bold italics, are my little responses.

The City Garden Project – The Myths, dispelled.

  • We want you to make your decision based on truth, not incorrect claims, speculation and downright nonsense!

Fine – we are all in agreement.

  • Myths have been at the heart of the campaign against the City Garden Project and if some of them were true then the opposition could be justified.

Which myths and what are they?  Where did you get them from?  I remember the initial consultation:  we were shown a beautiful, expensive colour brochure (which the taxpayer had funded) – the cover of which had a flat concrete giant square with some plants in planters.  Later on we were told the project was not going to look like the picture.  Maybe we could have saved some taxpayer money and time by waiting for a consultation and poll until such time we knew what the proponents had up their collective sleeve.  But it is not for us to question the gods.

  • But, whether by mischief-making or simply misinterpretation, the rumours have been rife.

So here we have an implication of mischief-making.  Was it the god Loki at work?  Or of the opposition being too thick to be able to ‘interpret’ what is proposed.  I have not personally heard ANY RUMOURS.  I have read serious questions about the project’s economic, ecological, sociological and regeneration benefits.

I have read people asking where the ventilation will be for underground car parking.  That is one example of the sort of criticisms and questions that I’ve experienced.  ‘Dante’s Inferno’ has a version of heaven, hell and earth without any ventilation, so I guess these miracles can happen here as well.  

  • So, let’s dispel some of these myths! 

Fantastic!  Let’s go!

1. The “green lung” of our city will be lost – FALSE. 

The City Garden will double the amount of green space in our city centre. The new “green lung” will be more usable, more accessible and brought into the sun-light. New garden areas will be created, including a colourful, blossoming area, a forest, a Learning Garden, a quiet tree-lined Bosque area with street furniture and open green space for relaxing in or having a picnic.

Patches of grass do not clean the pollutants and particulates out of a city – established, large, leafy trees do.  As the goal posts keep moving on what trees are to be lost by the City Garden Project engineers, it is hard to imagine which trees are going.

I am still very disappointed we will not have a MONOLITH at which we can make sacrifices to the gods.  I guess we’ll just have to sacrifice the trees, animals, birds, and money to these new gods instead.  But are you going to be reassured that the existing mature trees are somehow going to be replaced overnight by trees with equal pollution / C02 management capabilities by people – sorry gods – who think they can plunk a pine forest in the midst of a city centre?

Most people question where the trees’ roots will be – nearly all trees have extremely large, spreading root systems which require soil.  By the way these roots and soil are what prevents flooding.  I have read points made by experts who say it is not viable to grow a pine forest in the middle of a city centre for a number of reasons.  I don’t know the science – but I look forward to the City Garden Project team showing me examples of such cities.

  I do enjoy looking at the photos of people sitting on the concrete wedge over the ‘stage’ area which is covered with a bit of sod.

There are examples of cities with great open plazas which flood as there is insufficient soil / tree roots to absorb  heavy rains.  At least rain isn’t much of a problem here in North East Scotland.  As to bringing everything into the sunshine, err, the sun shines in the valley as it is – with the added advantage of the valley providing a very valuable wind break.

At Tullos Hill the soil matrix is very poor – which in the words of the soil report prepared by the Forestry Commission leaves any trees planted subject to ‘wind throw’.  If the roots don’t have a good firm earthy soil to hold onto, then a strong wind – like the kind that will inevitably blow across any area brought to street level – may well bring trees toppling on top of the granite web – or people.

Just by elevating a hunk of potato-chip shaped concrete and putting a few inches of sod over it, you are not creating a natural green lung/habitat/area,  even if it is the prettiest thing you’ve ever seen.  As far as doubling the space of the gardens, I do enjoy looking at the photos of people sitting on the concrete wedge over the ‘stage’ area which is covered with a bit of sod.

There is a woman sitting in a chair – a very neat trick indeed for such a steep slope.  Maybe she has a specially-constructed chair with short legs at the back and longer ones in the front?  Perhaps she is a goddess and is floating?  But as many observers point out, the ‘concept’ drawings are inconsistent in this and other ways, such as changing scale.

No, if you are losing the mature, healthy trees that are there – which are home to animals such as EU protected bats and rooks – you are indeed losing a major part of what makes the park valuable to our health.  There is no doubt of this in my mind, so I’m glad we have such a great team of pro-garden project personnel ready willing and able to explain all.  They’ve just not got round to it yet.

2. The city can’t afford the City Garden Project – FALSE.  ( Seriously? )

We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get a £182m investment in our city at NO cost to the City Council or the citizens of Aberdeen.

One way or the other, the citizen is going to pay.  IF the scheme somehow goes perfectly to plan and we have a bunch of new shops (without hurting further the existing ones) the business rates will be used to repay a loan – a loan at an unknown rate of interest on an as-yet to be determined sum.

And if it doesn’t go well, and Aberdeen gets its very own Trams project fiasco to match Edinburgh’s – the City has to find a way to pay for the TIF.  As far as the donations from private sources are concerned, at last report Sir Ian had promised to put the £50 million he pledged into his will.  Well, if I were one of his children, I’d contest the will if it ever came to that:  an ageing parent throwing £50 million on concrete webs should convince any court that something is wrong upstairs, and a will might get thrown out.

  Some say taking a loan is borrowing money.  But seems we would just be ‘unlocking’ funds – so no problem there.

But who is our mystery £5 million pound donor?  If this is a public project (debatable – the Aberdeen City  Gardens Trust is a private limited company with two people in it), then the public should know where all of the money is coming from.  If someone pledges money, what guarantee is there it will come in?  Some of our current millionaires are feeling the economic pinch, sad but true.

And if are they using this £5 million promise as a lever to tip the balance of public opinion towards the scheme  – then if they stand to gain personally, then we should be told.

I hear varying reports that other private people are pledging something like £20 million.  Now that’s a myth I’d like more info on.

Once in a lifetime?  How on earth is that conclusion reached?  That claims sounds  very much like the scaremongering the pro garden project have been accusing others of.  There are six trial TIF schemes at present.  There may well be more.  But if this were a once in a lifetime chance, then all the more reason to take our time and make a cohesive, desirable bid, perhaps even one based on something less nebulous than a scheme that has a forest one week, an ice rink the next – and so other many unknowns to it.

TIF is only in the pilot stage in Scotland – so let’s get in there first!  Test case Aberdeen!  Some say taking a loan is borrowing money.  But seems we would just be ‘unlocking’ funds – so no problem there.

A minor detail, as we’ll all be rolling in dosh in no time, but do we know the interest rates on the £182 -192 million pounds Aberdeen City Council is going to borrow?  I’ve not been told.  Over to you, City Garden Project.

Again I will say that mere mortals choose to live in an area that is clean, safe and has excellent schools and hospitals.  I must have missed the part when someone proposed to the City Council that it should cut services and schools, and replace green space and our environmental heritage for concrete.

I don’t remember agreeing to continuously expand the City’s footprint into its green space while there are so many empty buildings in the city centre.  I guess I wasn’t paying attention that day – probably got distracted by reading about a cute baby competition in the news or something.

  • 40% of the cost of the City Garden has already been secured. The Scottish Government have pledged that, if the development is supported by the public, a TIF will be used to fund the rest of the costs for the City Garden Project. 

Fine.  Let’s see the legal papers showing exactly how much has been pledged and how ironclad or otherwise these pledges are.  Forty percent?  What is the figure?  We still do not have any genuine, concrete, specific project (no timescale, no costings done, and no precise scope – these are what you learn in ‘Projects 101’ are the building blocks).  You cannot  possibly say you have 40% of the money you need for something which you don’t even have defined or costed.  Not without godlike wisdom anyway.

  • TIF is a bit like a mortgage. The cost of the “property” is £182m. The “property” is the City Centre Regeneration Scheme (Aberdeen Art Gallery, St Nicholas and North Denburn redevelopments, the new public realm and the City Garden Project). The £55m of philanthropic donations already secured for the City Garden, along with the £15m to follow from the private sector, is the deposit.   

First, please define ‘the new public realm’ for me – just so that we are all talking about one specific defined term, thanks.  I’ll bet TIF is a bit like a mortgage:  if you don’t pay up, you lose your property.  Again Aberdeen City Council are going to borrow the money via TIF.  Not Ian Wood.  Nor the private limited ‘Aberdeen City Gardens Trust Company’.

Just as well we’re told it will bring in over a hundred million a year – we’ll be needing it.

Back to the mathematics.  OK – let’s assume the £55 million is £50m of Ian Wood’s, plus the mystery philanthropist.

We should also be told who the £15 million is coming from, but leaving that aside, that’s apparently £70 million pounds.

Some people would question what kind of tax breaks if any will be given to the donors, and whether or not the tax that does not get into the treasury (because it’s being put in a hole in the ground) would be of benefit to our ever-dwindling services instead.

Right – 70 million is forty percent of 175 million.  We have just been told that the ‘cost of the property is 182 million’.  Sorry – I would have thought that the 182 million is the value of the assets, but there it is.  Just for the record: forty percent of 182 million is 72.8 million.  And just so you know, Scottish Enterprise had by May of this year spent over £420,000 on this project on consultations and PR and the like, and the City Council have just agreed to spend up to £300,000 of our money on the legal costs.

Just as well we’re told it will bring in over a hundred million a year – we’ll be needing it.  Hands up anyone who suspects this project will have many little extras here and there.  Do you think at the end of the day the estimates we are getting now (nebulous as they are) will:  a.  stay exactly the same, b.  decrease and cost less than we think, or c.  cost more?

  • The City Council takes out a loan to pay for the remainder. This loan is paid back over 25 years using the income from the new business rates raised. The City is therefore being given both the deposit and the income to pay back the loan – clever eh? That’s why TIFs are so widely used in the States and promoted in Scotland by the Government. But remember a TIF can only be used for this – not for anything else and if we don’t use our TIF, other cities will!

Well, it is indeed time for some myth- busting, because depending on who you listen to, this either is or is not a commercial venture.  TIF is supposed to be for commercial ventures – and it is unclear how anything but a commercial venture can make the millions in loan repayments we would need to make.

In fact, I seem to recall seeing a video of one of the ‘philanthropists’  saying this is ‘Not a commercial venture’.  ‘Clever eh?’  – I am not exactly convinced.  I do think risky, untested, potentially fiscally disastrous.

And overall, unnecessary to my way of thinking.  Nothing is wrong with the gardens.  We could regenerate the city’s shops by lowering our extremely high business rates.  Making more shopping spaces, eating places and entertainment venues creates more competition for the venues we have.

Did you know we as taxpayers are subsidising the AECC and the Lemon Tree – and now they want us to borrow money to build competition for these venues we’re already paying for?  It would be to my way of thinking like betting on several horses in a race.  You might win on one of them, but you will lose money.

3. The City Garden is a commercial development – FALSE

This is about creating a new civic space and gardens that will be brought back into daily use… 

(note – see definition above of ‘propaganda’)

…and become part of the daily life of the people of Aberdeen. The space will include exciting new venues for everyone to use and enjoy including a cultural and arts centre, a 500-seat black box theatre and 5,000 seat amphitheatre and stage.  

See my quotes above about these theatre/stage options.  We don’t need them.  We’re already paying for such venues.  The writer of this paper has first set out to ‘bust myths’.  However, they are lapsing into emotive, subjective prose when they say how wonderful this will all be.  We don’t know that – we don’t know anything of the kind.

But now we get to the ‘venues for everyone to use and enjoy’.  Right.  At present, we can come and go as we please when the gardens are open.  No one can prevent us from enjoying the space as we see fit – no one can charge us any fee to use the gardens.  Why?  Because they belong to each and every one of us as Common Good Land.  Are these ‘non-commercial’ theatres going  to be free of any admission charge?  If yes, then fine – they are not commercial.  If no – then they can’t make money and pay off the TIF loan.

And if they charge you money to be on your common good land, then whoever holds the deeds to the land, it is no longer common good land in reality.  Are we going to borrow millions to make a theatre that is free to go to?  If so, why don’t we just close the AECC and Lemon Tree and be done with them?

Who is responsible for joining up all these fuzzy, competing concepts – and why aren’t they actually doing it?

  • The land and all the facilities will remain in the ownership of the City of Aberdeen and its citizens.  

Oh yes, we’ll still own it – but better, wiser, richer people will control it.  You might own it – but try going to a concert for free or getting one of the 25-30 car parking spaces free.  There is every possibility that one private entity or another (why does the two-person Aberdeen City Gardens Trust spring to my mind?) will get a very long lease at a very low rate.  In terms of ownership, ‘possession is 9/10 of the law’.

4. Union Terrace Gardens will be turned into a giant car park – FALSE.

I don’t know where our friends picked up this ‘myth’  – I’ve not heard it.  But there you go.

Parking is at a premium in the city and while many people would indeed wish to see more car-parking in the centre, it will not be in the City Garden. There will be between 25 and 30 underground parking spaces to service the new development.  Old Susannah is no mathematical genius like the ones who work out our city’s budgets; but if we are putting in a 5,000 seat venue and a smaller venue in a city centre already pressured for car parking spaces, then I predict some car parking and car congestion problems.  Wild conclusion I know.

However, if there are 30 underground spaces, they will still need ventilation.  Nothing like that is shown on the plans I’ve seen yet.  But back to the maths.  If we have 5,000 people going to see a Robbie Williams tribute act in the brand new space and 30 parking spaces available at the venue, there just might be a little bit of an issue.

That nice Mr Milne (owner of Triple Kirks – soon to be developed, Chair of ACSEF, one of the anonymity-seeking businesspeople behind the beautiful Vote for the City Gardens Project…) seems to need some car parking space for his beautiful glass box offices which will be adjacent to this great ‘non-commercial’ granite web.  I guess the 30 spaces will take care of that nicely.  Either that, or there will be more than 30 spaces.  A lot more.

As I posted on Facebook this week, it comes down to these points (leaving out the environmental carnage and the Common Good Status, that is):

  • 1. Is TIF a tried and tested financial model in the UK? Not yet.
  • 2. Do we know exactly what this project will cost? No – because the scope is unknown and ever-changing. That is one of the main flaws with Edinburgh’s trams scheme – it kept changing – and now we are looking at nearly one billion cost for it.
  • 3. Is the design fully fleshed out enough for anyone who supports it to fully explain the engineering (vents, how will trees – esp. pines grow, how will ramps be made safe, etc)? No.
  • 4. As the taxpayer is already propping up entertainment venues with tax money, venues that cannot survive without financial aid, does it make any financial sense to create venues to compete with them? No.

So – if you’re not sure about any of these points  – and who is? – then maybe we should not rush into anything.

Plant-a-Tree In Palestine Project: Aberdeen Represented

 Articles, Community, Featured, History, Information, News  No Responses »
Jan 122012
 

On January 2nd an Aberdeen-based member of Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (SPSC) took part in a new project to re-plant trees in previously devastated areas of Palestine.  Dave Black, along with other members of the Stop the JNF international delegation, joined individuals from a nearby refugee camp, trade union representatives, youth activists, Stop the Wall campaigners and representatives of political parties. The group planted 111 trees, representing the number of years that the Jewish National Fund (JNF) has been in existence, playing a key role in Israel’s policy of displacing and dispossessing Palestinians.

82-dave-in-imwas-or-canada-park
The JNF controls land that the organisation openly decrees is solely for the benefit of Jewish people; non-Jewish people are not able to live or work on the land and it can only be sold or rented to Jewish people.
The organisation is a quasi-governmental one, with extremely close ties to the state; it is often referred to as a para-statal organisation.

Despite the JNF’s clearly discriminatory policies, the Israeli state maintains this strong relationship with the organisation.

The trees were planted in Tulkarem district, formerly one of the richest and most important districts of Palestine. In 1948, most of its lands were taken and dozens of villages destroyed. The JNF played a key role in the destruction of some of these villages and the ethnic cleansing of their population.

The land where the trees have been planted, in the city of Tulkarem, was historically part of the agricultural land of the city. However, in 2002 the Israeli military bulldozed the entire stretch of land, supposedly for “security reasons”.  Tulkarem has also been one of the districts most affected byIsrael’s illegal separation wall, which has destroyed some 8.4 square kilometres of olive and other fruit trees, 37.3 km of water networks, 15 km of agricultural roads, as well as irrigated agricultural land in Tulkarem, Qalqiliya and Jenin districts.

Despite poor weather on the day there was a large turnout and the event was welcomed by those involved.  A representative from the Palestinian Farmer’s Union explained the importance of such events that bring different groups together:

“the participation of farmers, youth groups, friends from various organisations and others increases belief in the justice of our cause and the belief that we are not working alone against the Occupation. The land that was so important land to us was uprooted by the Occupation”. 

He also added that the event was timely because of the ongoing attacks by settlers on Palestinian land.

Aberdeen’s ties to the project were already significant as the local branch of SPSC last year raised £650 for the Plant-a-Tree in Palestine project.

92-tulkarem-tree-planting
Over 5 days the group walked 84 miles along the path of Hadrian’s Wall, raising awareness of the Stop the JNF campaign and also of the separation wall.

The group’s efforts went towards funding the planting event in Tulkarem.  It is hoped that the Plant-a-Tree in Palestine project will build to support the ongoing struggle of Palestinians to rebuild by providing resources for villages to plant trees that are indigenous to Palestine’s natural environment and agricultural life.

The delegation included members of Palestine solidarity and campaign groups in Scotland, England, the United States, France, Austria, as well as a representative of Midlothian Trade Unions Council.  The main activity of the delegation was 5 days of fact-finding and educational visits around Israel and the West Bank, followed by the day of tree planting in Tulkarem.

The group visited Al-Araqib in the Naqab/Negev desert, a Bedouin village which has been destroyed 33 times since July 22nd 2010.  The trees of the village have been destroyed and thus the village’s livelihood and the JNF has been instrumental in displacing the Bedouin people of this area.

Within clear view of the village that remains is the Ambassadors Forest, one of the JNF’s many forests in Israel.  As the delegation spoke with villagers, including the sheikh of the village, a truck drove by on the sandy, desert road.  The truck was on its way to provide water for the new JNF trees; the wrong trees planted at the wrong time, thus requiring much additional water.  The village of Al Araqib has no water supplied to it, but instead villages have to watch trucks drive past on their way to irrigate trees that are steadily taking over their land.

94-dave-planting
The group also spoke to a staff member of the UK ambassador’s officer in Israel, who was visiting the village in preparation for the visit of the British ambassador and Parliament Under Secretary of State Alistair Burt.

The chance meeting allowed the British members of the delegation to raise the issue of the UK’s complicity with the JNF and Israeli crimes, and specifically Early Day Motion (1677) which was tabled last year and currently has over 50 signatories.

The Early Day Motion outlines the discriminatory nature of the JNF and calls for the revocation of the JNF’s charity status in the UK.  The motion also criticises the Prime Minister’s patronage of the JNF, a situation which was addressed for the first time since the foundation of the JNF when David Cameron stepped down as patron last year.

For the first time since its creation not one of the three main party leaders in the UK are patrons of the organisation.

Later in the week delegates visited refugees in Ramallah (in the West Bank) who had originally lived in the Palestinian village of Imwas.  The refugees told the group the fate of their village in 1967 when it was overrun by Israeli forces set on taking the Latrun Salient, a hillside seen as a key strategic target.

Photos were shown, taken from exactly the same position, that illustrated the dramatic changes to the village and land in the 1960s and 70s.  The first photo showed part of the thriving village, the final one showing what is now known as Canada Park.

Canada Park is one of the many parks and forests that JNF has been responsible for establishing in Israel, or in this case Israel and the West Bank.  Sections of the park, such as where the village of Imwas once stood, are within the Palestinian side of the “Green line”, or armistice line drawn up at the end of the 1967 war.  However, there is no sign of this and almost all visitors to the park remain oblivious, nor is it explained that the walls of the park entrance are built with the bricks of the houses of Imwas.

Delegates visited the park along with Said, a direct descendant of a family which was displaced from Imwas.  Said stood with his own children at the remains of his father’s house, now only the barest of remnants.  The group was also shown the other remaining evidence of the village: unmarked, unprotected memories scattered around the archaeological set-piece of Roman Baths for tourists to enjoy.  The gravestones of villagers stand just a few feet from one of the park’s picnic benches – a stark, chilling image.

46-british-park-sign
Another JNF park, British park, was also visited.  This was of special interest to the UK participants on the delegation.

The park is built over 2 Palestinian villages: Ajjur and Zakariyya. The villages were 2 of the roughly 500 villages where massacres and forced population transfer of Palestinians from their lands in 1948.

This period is known by Palestinians as the Nakba – Arabic for “catastrophe”.

The JNF played a key part in planning the Nakba and then went on to expropriate the land of Palestinian refugees and proceeded to build parks, such as British Park, on the land using funds raised by the JNF around the world.

In 1948 the village of Ajjur was populated by 3000 people. Three of the original houses of Ajjur remain today, including what was previously a clinic and is now a winery serving the new Israeli towns that now intersperse British Park.  Where the market of Ajjur once stood is now inhabited by a play-park and some, presumably, “British” sheep; a favourite picnic spot for those visiting British Park.

On the fifth day of the delegation the group visited Al-Walaja, a town that was established in the West Bank after the original village of Walaja was destroyed; the JNF went on to build the Kennedy memorial on the land.  After years of living in caves near the original town, the new town was established and former residents could return to some form of normality.  Normality, that is, until the development of Israel’s illegal Separation Wall, which is set to once again devastate the village.

The wall is still under construction and already surrounds much of the town, but when complete will completely surround the town.  Residents will be forced to use an access road controlled by the Israeli military if they wish to leave. This wall will cut residents off from much of their agricultural land, and will inevitably lead to displacement away from the town as residents look to find viable employment.

56-al-walaja-wall-ends
The locations visited by the delegation left those involved in no doubt of the JNF’s deep complicity in crimes against Palestinians, past and present.

Witnessing the situation that faces so many Palestinians inevitably shocked, saddened and deeply moved those involved.

However, none of the delegates failed to be inspired and in awe of the resistance of the Palestinian people who fail to lie down and accept the injustice that has been forced upon them.

Many different forms of resistance were seen, some large and obvious and some more subtle but no less impressive.  The commitment to resistance of those that were encounters served to emphasise the important of the ongoing efforts around the world to show solidarity with Palestinians, such as the Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment campaign against Israel.

The Plant-a-Tree in Palestine project is one such way in which people can resist the injustices enforced by the JNF and the Israeli government.

The project will never be able to compete with the financial clout of the JNF and the 240 million trees that this has allowed the organisation to plant in Israel and the West Bank.  However, the project does allow a positive way to act against such crimes, enabling Palestinians to resist ongoing attempts at dispossession.

As Stop the Wall Co-ordinator Jamal Juma pointed out, it is also serves as an ideal way to educate those affected, Palestinians young and old, about the role of the JNF in the dispossession of their homes.  The project also offers great potential for future collaboration between Palestinians and the international community to take part in non-violent resistance against the Israeli government’s attempts to entrench the illegal occupation of the West Bank, dispossess Palestinians within Israel of even more of their lands, and take away the rights, enshrined in international law, of 7 million refugees to return to their homes in Israel.

For more on the Stop the JNF campaign:   www.stopthejnf.org
Join the Palestine campaign in Aberdeen:  Aberdeen@scottishpsc.org.uk
Visit:  www.Facebook.com/Spscaberdeen

Tree for Every Citizen Scheme: Not So Cost Neutral After All

 Aberdeen City, Articles, Breaking, Community, Environment, Featured, Information, News, Opinion  No Responses »
Jan 072012
 

Aberdeen’s contentious Tullos Hill  deer cull / tree-planting scheme takes a particularly strong blow as a Freedom of Information request shows that the financial picture is not as ‘cost-neutral’ as its (few) supporters would have us think.  Suzanne Kelly examines the newly-released figures for Phase 1 of the planting and questions the logic of proceeding with Phase 2.

deer5pic
Aileen Malone, Aberdeen City Councillor and Convener of the Housing & Environment Committee has been silent on the subject of her pet project and Liberal Democrat election manifesto pledge lately; she’s not answered emails on the subject, nor has she appeared in the media to defend the scheme.
The Liberal Democrat party headquarters likewise have not replied to any emails on the matter of the deer cull to date.

Malone is the de facto figurehead for the plan to cull the roe deer (which have happily lived in the area for decades without the need for a cull) in order to plant a staggering 89,000 trees on Tullos Hill. 

When full details broke as to what this Phase 2 planting entails emerged, individuals, community councils and animal welfare charities expressed dismay and disbelief.

One of the main arguments offered by its proponents is that planting the trees and shooting the deer is ‘cost-neutral’, or in the words of Councillor Neil Fletcher in an email concerning the cull:-

“… this project is at practically no cost to the tax-payer”.

But is the scheme as cost-neutral as its City Council proponents claim?  The answer is most definitely NO.

The attached spread sheet excerpt was obtained in mid-December following months of requests  (note that a line has been added to show a refund the City had to make – this was somehow omitted).  Aileen Malone wrote in early October to advise an officer would get back on the matter shortly.   When no information was forthcoming , a Freedom of Information request was lodged (and answered slightly later than was meant to be the deadline).

The City’s (incomplete) spread sheet

The spread sheet from the city shows incoming money as negative and outgoings as positive figures.

There is an outgoing sum of £3,000 at Line 18 with no explanatory text.  There is likewise a line for £142 – this may relate to an advertising supplement extolling the virtues of the scheme, but this is not certain.  The city also forgot to take off the £43,800 it had to return for the failure of phase 1 on Tullos.  Combining all of the figures together, I get an indication that Aberdeen may be £20,600 in the red at this point – and yet may look to go ahead with a bigger plantation.

See: Tree-for-every-citizen-finances/

Dames Violets At Tullos. Will They Be History If The Trees Are Planted?
Looking at the list of money going in and out of the account, it seems that the scheme was not the simple, cheap, well thought-out plan promised.   When the finances are considered in conjunction with a soil report issued by the Forestry Commission, it is possible to conclude the plan is deeply flawed and expensive.

The the soil report indicates that Tullos Hill’s soil quality  means the trees would be subject to ‘wind throw.’  This means that winds (such as the extremely strong winds frequently experienced this winter) will more than likely topple trees growing on the hill.

The report also points to the possibility that trees simply will not thrive on Tullos for a variety of reasons– but what is the financial impact of failure?

The costly Phase 1 failure- £43,800 in grant money repaid

The City was forced to repay £43,800 of grant money (after months of being chased for payment, it should be noted) to the Forestry Commission.  Presumably this money was generated from the taxpayer in the first place – therefore the taxpayer may well have wound up paying both for the trees to be planted as well as for their failure to thrive.

While the City has chosen largely to put the blame for the failure on some 29 roe deer in Loirston County Park, the failure belongs  in no small part to those who selected the site, who decided to buy smaller tree guards than had been recommended, who ignored the historic wind, weather and soil data, and who did little about weeds.  Perhaps an investigation is called for into the selection of Tullos in the first place, and into any possible negligence on the part of those involved.

Will Aberdeen be taking another grant from the Forestry Commission – which arguably we were led to believe was already arranged?

If so – why?  What are the implications of a failure of 89,000 trees financially speaking?  Unfortunately, according to the Freedom of Information response, thereares as yet no financial plans, budgets or projections available.

Considering the proponents originally gave a deadline of May 2011 for private individuals to stump up £225,000 to save the deer (a figure which exceeds the £200,000 Phase 1 grant!), it is highly worrying that projections for the future phase 2 scheme cannot be supplied as ‘the information is not held’.  Had the scheme’s supporters come clean in these respects months ago, this scheme may not have gone so far down the road as it has been allowed to.

Paying for Experts

Animal charities offered the services of other forestry experts to the City free of charge with a view to finding a way to plant trees without killing the deer – something which is quite possible to do.  Deer will apparently be culled for several years (there are thought to be 29 deer in the area which roam from site to site; these creatures usually live 6-7 years, and in some instances are fed by local people).

The city denigrated the experts, and advised it already has an expert.

Tullos Hill. Beautiful Without A Forest
The identity of the City’s expert has never been made known.  At one stage it was suggested that they were being paid for their services in connection with ‘A Tree for Every Citizen.’

Looking at the companies listed on the spread sheet involved and the people who serve on these companies, a number of forestry experts seem to be involved as paid consultants. As such, these people might be seen to have a vested interest in a Phase 2 planting going ahead; it would be human nature to protect one’s source of income.

One of the people whose names crops up in a list of company directors has many directorships to their credit – including charcoal and sawmill director/company officer roles.  Some of the twenty or so companies on this person’s list of directorships have been dissolved, including a boomerang company or two.

Further research into the companies and individuals mentioned on the Council’s spread sheet is under way.

Aberdeen officials have issued conflicting statements on the nature of the forest to be created – some say it will bring in revenue which will help pay for the scheme; others say no such plans are in place.  If a sawmill plant, lumber jacking or charcoal works  (and these types of business interests are reflected in the company activities of people involved with the scheme per the spread sheet) are envisaged for Tullos, then the public should be told.

If one or more persons with vested interests in making profit from lumber are refusing the advice / peer review from animal welfare experts with forestry experience, then the entire scheme should be examined in a public, transparent forum and reviewed by a number of recognised experts.

Surely an impartial, scientific professional would normally welcome experienced, free advice even if they chose not to heed it.  The claims of expert advice seem hollow when in one document tree guards are discarded as deer control devices because they have ‘visual impact.’

Can complete impartiality of someone who may stand to gain from the Phase 2 planting going ahead be guaranteed?  How can there be an objection to wider scrutiny?

Sponsors and ‘Educational’ use of children to plant trees:  I wouldn’t count on it

Companies which donated to the first phase of the ‘Tree for Every Citizen’ scheme are understandably reluctant to use their budgets for controversial Phase 2.

weed protection of some sort will be required which may impact other wildlife, and yet the wind may make it all in vain.

Two major companies have indicated that they will not sponsor this next phase.  Will any business want to put their brand’s value at risk by association with an unpopular scheme and deer cull?  It is highly unlikely, but some in the council seem to think sponsors will be found.  Again, there seems to be nothing budgeted, just nebulous talk of seeking business sponsors.

Schoolchildren are being relied on to make the plan look more affordable; they will be asked to help plant the trees on Tullos.

It seems doubtful that local parents will willingly give consent; thousands have signed a petition against the scheme, and over three thousand people are on a Facebook group opposing the scheme.  Clearly if the scheme will have to pay for planting all 89,000 trees when it had hoped to use children in part, then the scheme becomes even less financially sound.

The educational benefits of planting saplings should also be delivered alongside the fact a cull is being implemented not for animal welfare reasons (the Scottish SPCA condemns this particular scheme) as it is (allegedly) the cheapest way to protect the trees,  that weed protection of some sort will be required which may impact other wildlife, and yet the wind may make it all in vain.

Other costs; environmental costs

Weeds were largely to blame according to a Forestry report for the Phase 1 failure.

The Aberdeen taxpayer will be paying for several years of ‘weed control’ for Phase 2 – this may mean spraying pesticides which will damage other plants, insects, birds and other wildlife.  Using pesticides in an area near factories, homes and schools will also lead to further citizen protests.   Aberdeen paid £7,125 for Bryan Massie specifically for weed control in Phase 1 (as well as another £22,800). If the weed control was inadequate then, then how much more will we spend annually?

It is important to remember that Tullos already has its own wildlife and is a thriving ecosystem in its own right.   Gorse clearance is also recommended, although many environmentalists state that gorse is a food and habitat haven for much wildlife.  How much money will the taxpayer spend ripping up gorse?

The winners

According to the City’s information, the following companies have made money on the scheme:

CJ Piper & Co                     £42,000

Bryan Massie                     £30,000

Dulnain Bridge                   £77,800

Scottish Woodlands        £11,700

TM Forestry                       £44,400

(unspecified)                     £  3,000

TOTAL:                                                                  £208,900

(Note – while over the months there have been different figures mentioned and unofficially given, it is assumed that the most accurate set of figures is the one supplied by the Freedom of Information request received mid December which is used in this article).

The future:  No tangible financial projections – and no funding application lodged

The Freedom of Information request seems to be admitting that no budget for the future phase is held by the City.

An earlier FOI request shows that despite everything the proponents have said and done, there is as yet no formalised application lodged for a second phase.  This means that for nearly a year the claims of proponents such as Malone that the scheme was going to go ahead and was going to be cost neutral were inaccurate.  It is possible that some of the members of the Housing Committee voted in favour of this plan based on its being cost neutral; if so, the matter should be examined by that Committee and the relevant Audit Committee.

It is safe to assume that not every single grant application gets approved.  We seem to have a situation for  Phase 2 where there was no final, formal application for funds lodged, no approved funding in place, and no budget in place.

When the £43,800 repayment is subtracted from the accounts it certainly looks as if some £22,000 more than was granted was spent on Phase 1, leaving a budget deficit for Phase 2 before it even starts.

In the absence of information to the contrary the evidence speaks for itself.

Conclusion

Parents of school-age children might wish to check with their schools as to any planting plans involving their children.

Voters might want to ask their City Councillors how they stand on the issue now, and if they were in a position to vote on the matter in May 2011, did they then believe the scheme was cost-neutral.  Private sector companies might wish to think twice before entering any sponsorship/funding deals for Phase 2 as well – it does not look like a public relations win any longer.

The whole point of the cull was to make the tree planting possible, yet some council officers and elected officials want to backtrack on that point now. They now claim it is for animal welfare reasons and not the trees. However, the entire unfolding history of the City’s claims are a matter of record.

What may have started out as a great-sounding greenwash election plank has irrevocably turned into an unpopular, controversial, seemingly disorganised non-starter.  It is time to leave Tullos alone for now – or to consider enhancing its status as meadowland.  Anything else just does not add up.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries