THE MOOR IN SPRING
CONGRATULATIONS !
Just months after he was awarded an MBE, Woodhouse Moor’s gardener, John Egan has had further cause to celebrate. Forty years ago last week, on the 24th May 1969, he and his wife Susan were married. Earlier this evening, I was talking to John. He told me how he came to Leeds in 1961 from Castlerea in County Rosscommon. When he first arrived here, he lived in the gatehouse of the Faversham Hotel on Mount Preston. In early 1963, he moved from there to Roundhay. Then he spent some time in Harehills before moving on to Meanwood, which is where he was living when he met Susan. They moved to their present home, the gardener’s lodge, in 1974. John and Susan have two daughters and four grandchildren.
RECENT LETTERS
On Thursday the 21st May, there was a letter from H Johnson pointing out that the council’s refusal to enforce the barbeque ban is undermining the hard work of the Moor’s gardener, John Egan MBE. Then on the 23rd May, Barbara Tyldesley from Cookridge wrote that allowing barbeques on the Moor doesn’t help the council’s environmental credentials. On the 25th May, there were letters from Ian Falkingham of Woodhouse, and Chris Webb of Headingley Hill. Ian feels that our only importance to the council, is as a source of council tax. Chris asks how long the council is going to allow this situation to carry on, and if it would be allowed on green space owned by the universities. Tony Green from North Hyde Park had a letter in on the 27th May asking if the council can’t properly manage the Moor, are they fit to be managing the rest of the city. On the 28th May, Ann Massa from North Hyde Park said that our councillors are letting us down, just as our MPs have let us down. And then today, Friday the 29th May, Richard Hellawell from Little Woodhouse accused the Lib Dem councillors of riding roughshod over voters.
PHOTOS MY NEIGHBOUR TOOK THIS MORNING
AND ANOTHER MORNING AFTER
At the INWAC meeting on the 2nd July 2008, in connection with our request that councillors enforce the byelaw banning barbeques, Councillor Jamie Matthews said “If some people had their way, they’d stop everyone having fun”. Well these pictures show what the Moor looked like after just one afternoon and evening of people having fun. Councillor Matthews’ and his colleagues’ refusal to enforce the byelaws means that the surface of the Moor is being permanently degraded. Broken glass is being ground into the earth making the grass unsafe for everyone, but especially so for children. These councillors have much in common with the people who are causing the damage. They’re not from here, they don’t live here, and they don’t care about here. They should be made to pay for the damage they’re causing to the Moor out of their own pockets. And the bills for the “consultation” and fire brigade call outs should be sent to them too.
JUST ANOTHER DAY ON THE MOOR
The above photos showing barbeques and public urination were taken at 4pm this afternoon. Even though it’s against the law to have barbeques and to urinate in public, the police officers present did nothing about it. Just after I took these photos, I counted six men simultaneously urinating beside the hedge that borders the allotments. The fact they can’t be bothered walking to the nearby toilets shows their lack of respect for the park and the sensibilities of local people, a trait they share with our councillors and the police. The photo of the fire engine was taken at 10pm. It had been called out to extinguish one of the many fires that are caused by barbeques. There were about six firemen, and one of them was heard to say that they’d probably be out to the Moor again tonight. The average cost of calling out a fire engine is £2,200.
CRIMEAN WAR CANNON
On the 6th September 2008, there was an interesting article in the Yorkshire Evening Post about two captured Russian cannon taken from a Russian ship at Sebastopol during the Crimean War. These were subsequently placed on Woodhouse Moor with great ceremony in 1857, and remained there until they were carted away in 1940 purportedly to be melted down as part of the war effort. The Moor may have lost the cannon, but it still has a connection to the Crimean War thanks to nearby Raglan Road and Cathcart Street, both named after Crimean War commanders.
If the article’s print is too small for you to read, please click on your browser’s “View” button and use the “Zoom” facility.
MORE LETTERS TO THE YEP
Once again, local residents have been furiously setting pen to paper to express their opinion on the proposal to establish barbeque areas on Woodhouse Moor. And no wonder, given the way so many have been disenfranchised by councillors who’ve gone out of their way to ensure that people not on the electoral register have a say in whether or not barbeques are legalised.
On Tuesday, there were letters from Bernard Atha, Jonathan Eyre, Albert Slingsby, and Christopher Todd. On Wednesday, there were letters from Colin and Marian Smith, Janet Sherwin, and Kathleen Mason. And on Friday, there were letters from Darrell Goodliffe, Louise Coombes, and Carol Millard.
All of the letters were against the proposal except the one from Lib Dem activist Darrell Goodliffe, who also had a letter published last Thursday.
(photo courtesy of Caverguy)
LEGALISING A NUISANCE
In his recent letter to the Yorkshire Evening Post (Readers’ Letters 15.5.09), Darrell Goodliffe claims that the existing byelaws restrict the “legitimate freedom” of people without gardens to have barbeques on Woodhouse Moor. For this reason, he supports the council’s proposal to allow barbeques on the Moor. Mr Goodliffe says that the damage caused by barbeques will be limited by restricting them to designated areas. But to those who point out that drifting smoke would interfere with other park users’ right to breathe unpolluted air, he has no answer. Instead, he suggests that if drifting smoke is a problem, then the opponents of the barbeque proposal should also be calling for barbeques in private gardens to be banned. In effect, he’s saying that having to breathe barbeque smoke in a park is no different to having to breathe it in your garden. But to compare barbeques in public parks with barbeques in private gardens is not comparing like with like. If the smoke from my neighbour’s barbeque is causing a nuisance, I can ask him to put it out. If he ignores my request, I have the remedy at law of taking out an injunction to prevent him having barbeques in the future. But if barbeques are legalised on Woodhouse Moor, if I asked someone having a barbeque there to extinguish it, they would be within their rights to tell me to go to one of the other Leeds parks where barbeques are still banned. And for the same reason, I would have no remedy at law.
Recently, on the Yorkshire Evening Post website, a lady from Ottawa commented that she lives close by to what used to be a lovely park. Then her local authority legalised barbeques. As a result, the only people who now visit the park, are those who go there to have a barbeque. The residents of Hyde Park, Woodhouse and Headingley are fighting this proposal so that everyone can continue to enjoy Woodhouse Moor, not just a selfish minority.
The above photograph was taken on the 12th May 2009 and shows the smoke pollution from just one barbeque. Multiply this by 40 to get an idea of the level of pollution that Leeds City Council considers acceptable on a park which when it was purchased in 1857 was known as “the lungs of Leeds”.
BEHIND THE MASK
It’s customary when writing to a newspaper, to supply an address. Many editors will refuse to publish your letter if you don’t. It’s about establishing your credentials as a real person, rather like the purpose of the electoral register. So it was highly significant that in his recent letter to the YEP, Darrell Goodliffe signed off as “Local Resident” rather than supplying an address (Readers’ Letters 7.5.09). Clearly for Mr Goodliffe, establishing in readers’ minds that here was a local resident who actually supports the barbeque proposal, was far more important than minor details like where he actually lives.
What’s not customary when writing to a newspaper is to state your political allegiance, unless of course you’re an active party member writing about an issue your party is deeply involved with. Under those circumstances, to deny your readers the benefit of that knowledge, might seem to some like a deception. I can understand though why someone would be tempted to do it. By stating your political allegiance, you run the risk that people might say “Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he”. Which is precisely what people have been saying since learning that Darrel Goodliffe is a Lib Dem activist.
(photo courtesy of Thomas Hawk)