Sell-off of Southampton's artworks up for debate

Daily Echo: Southampton City Art Gallery. Southampton City Art Gallery.

SHOULD Southampton’s city artwork be sold off? That’s the big question that will be debated at a special event in Southampton next month.

The City Art Gallery will fittingly be the venue for the Big Debate event at 5pm on March 6.

Two sides will fiercely debate the subject of selling off parts of the 4,000-piece collection, and you can have your say too.

One the one side, Daily Echo editor-in-chief Ian Murray and Southampton City Council leader Simon Letts will argue the merits of selling art to fund vital projects in the city.

The Daily Echo has long argued for a better use of some of the largely-hidden collection, through the Show Us The Monet campaign.

The previous Conservative administration at the council had been keen to sell off art, and current Labour leader Cllr Letts had wanted to sell off some pieces to fund the £21m arts complex.

His plans were halted by Culture Minister Ed Vaizey, who said they could suffer harsh financial penalties if they did so.

Opposing Mr Murray and Cllr Letts will be Liz Goodall from the Chipperfield Advisory Committee, which advises the council on the art collection, and Maurice Davies, director of the Museums Association.

They are among figures to have argued that the artwork is a precious cultural resource which should not be sold to fund civic works.

Much of the collection was originally bequeathed by a former alderman.

The debate will be chaired by Gareth Lewis, from Southampton-based PR firm Carswell Gould.

He said: “This is a powerfully emotive issue that is being followed closely by local authorities and museums across the UK. Southampton is very much a test case, so this is a debate with the potential to create ripples across the entire country.

“Our speakers are the key players at the very heart of the debate. We are giving them the platform to make their case so our audience and the whole city can make up their own minds. We expect a lively, combative evening in the inspiring surroundings of the very artworks whose future is on the block.

“This is just the first of a series of must-attend events designed to help the city take a big step forward on some of its most pressing issues.”

Mr Murray said: “I’m really looking forward to the debate.

“The Daily Echo has been championing the selling off of some small part of the art collection for several years. It makes sense to use this asset to benefit arts and culture in the city instead of placing extra debt on its residents. I am certain it will be a lively debate.”

You can attend the event by emailing bookings@business south.org or calling 023 8068 2520.

Tickets cost £20 plus VAT for Business South champions, £30 plus VAT for Business South associates and £40 plus VAT for other delegates.

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:16am Tue 18 Feb 14

southy says...

They don't want a real debate, thats why they are making a charge for the tickets to keep people away, they want a one sided argument where the city looks like its in favour of selling the art when in reality its not..
The rules about the art will not allow the city to sell apart from buying more art or for the purpose building that is solely for art (that means nothing else connected to the building like shops)
They don't want a real debate, thats why they are making a charge for the tickets to keep people away, they want a one sided argument where the city looks like its in favour of selling the art when in reality its not.. The rules about the art will not allow the city to sell apart from buying more art or for the purpose building that is solely for art (that means nothing else connected to the building like shops) southy
  • Score: 12

12:11pm Tue 18 Feb 14

ToastyTea says...

Yawn I guess it's about 3 months since you last ran a story about the council selling off the mysterious valuable artwork in some hidden vaults beneath the city, and then it never gets sold.
Yawn I guess it's about 3 months since you last ran a story about the council selling off the mysterious valuable artwork in some hidden vaults beneath the city, and then it never gets sold. ToastyTea
  • Score: 8

12:20pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
They don't want a real debate, thats why they are making a charge for the tickets to keep people away, they want a one sided argument where the city looks like its in favour of selling the art when in reality its not..
The rules about the art will not allow the city to sell apart from buying more art or for the purpose building that is solely for art (that means nothing else connected to the building like shops)
I for one would like to know how you came to this conclusion about the tickets, is it hear say or is it merely a personal conclusion/assumptio
n?

As for the rules, rules are made to be broken so you can bleat on about it all you want - if the decision to sell is made, they will be sold.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: They don't want a real debate, thats why they are making a charge for the tickets to keep people away, they want a one sided argument where the city looks like its in favour of selling the art when in reality its not.. The rules about the art will not allow the city to sell apart from buying more art or for the purpose building that is solely for art (that means nothing else connected to the building like shops)[/p][/quote]I for one would like to know how you came to this conclusion about the tickets, is it hear say or is it merely a personal conclusion/assumptio n? As for the rules, rules are made to be broken so you can bleat on about it all you want - if the decision to sell is made, they will be sold. Shoong
  • Score: -9

12:22pm Tue 18 Feb 14

ToastyTea says...

Just noticed you have to pay to attend this debate, um wtf. Nice little earner for the Echo.
Just noticed you have to pay to attend this debate, um wtf. Nice little earner for the Echo. ToastyTea
  • Score: 9

12:28pm Tue 18 Feb 14

southy says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
They don't want a real debate, thats why they are making a charge for the tickets to keep people away, they want a one sided argument where the city looks like its in favour of selling the art when in reality its not..
The rules about the art will not allow the city to sell apart from buying more art or for the purpose building that is solely for art (that means nothing else connected to the building like shops)
I for one would like to know how you came to this conclusion about the tickets, is it hear say or is it merely a personal conclusion/assumptio

n?

As for the rules, rules are made to be broken so you can bleat on about it all you want - if the decision to sell is made, they will be sold.
You never do like to read to much do you shoong

"You can attend the event by emailing bookings@business south.org or calling 023 8068 2520.

Tickets cost £20 plus VAT for Business South champions, £30 plus VAT for Business South associates and £40 plus VAT for other delegates."
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: They don't want a real debate, thats why they are making a charge for the tickets to keep people away, they want a one sided argument where the city looks like its in favour of selling the art when in reality its not.. The rules about the art will not allow the city to sell apart from buying more art or for the purpose building that is solely for art (that means nothing else connected to the building like shops)[/p][/quote]I for one would like to know how you came to this conclusion about the tickets, is it hear say or is it merely a personal conclusion/assumptio n? As for the rules, rules are made to be broken so you can bleat on about it all you want - if the decision to sell is made, they will be sold.[/p][/quote]You never do like to read to much do you shoong "You can attend the event by emailing bookings@business south.org or calling 023 8068 2520. Tickets cost £20 plus VAT for Business South champions, £30 plus VAT for Business South associates and £40 plus VAT for other delegates." southy
  • Score: 5

12:34pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Danae says...

The debate organiser is Business Solent.

It is a private sector organisation which operates paid-for seminars and events which are mainly attended by people attached to local firms which, in addition, pay an annual membership subscription to Business Solent.
The debate organiser is Business Solent. It is a private sector organisation which operates paid-for seminars and events which are mainly attended by people attached to local firms which, in addition, pay an annual membership subscription to Business Solent. Danae
  • Score: 6

12:42pm Tue 18 Feb 14

southy says...

Danae wrote:
The debate organiser is Business Solent.

It is a private sector organisation which operates paid-for seminars and events which are mainly attended by people attached to local firms which, in addition, pay an annual membership subscription to Business Solent.
Then they have no right to debate or decide and out come to some thing that as no concern of theirs, this is down to the residence only of Southampton to decide and not some out side organisation or any business in Southampton
[quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: The debate organiser is Business Solent. It is a private sector organisation which operates paid-for seminars and events which are mainly attended by people attached to local firms which, in addition, pay an annual membership subscription to Business Solent.[/p][/quote]Then they have no right to debate or decide and out come to some thing that as no concern of theirs, this is down to the residence only of Southampton to decide and not some out side organisation or any business in Southampton southy
  • Score: 8

12:45pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Lone Ranger. says...

What is the point of this debate.
.
Mr Murray has no influence whatsoever and DOES NOT represent the people of Southampton . .... I dont think that he even lives in Southampton. (but i could be wrong on that).
.
At a guess i would think that the majority of Southampton residents dont want it sold.
.
....... And the leader of the Tories will probably push for a ( another bl**dy) Referendum or threaten legal action.
.
A total waste of time and money
What is the point of this debate. . Mr Murray has no influence whatsoever and DOES NOT represent the people of Southampton . .... I dont think that he even lives in Southampton. (but i could be wrong on that). . At a guess i would think that the majority of Southampton residents dont want it sold. . ....... And the leader of the Tories will probably push for a ( another bl**dy) Referendum or threaten legal action. . A total waste of time and money Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 5

1:17pm Tue 18 Feb 14

skydog2 says...

Newspapers exist to report news, not create it. This is none of your business Murray, go back to where YOU live and stand for council there if you want to get involved in local politics.

There is no reason for the involvement of Business South. This is just another unnecessary shakedown to rip off the public in their own city for £40 + Vat.

Its easy; the Art Gallery stays open late, the attendants put some folding chairs out. The public come in, sit down to listen and take part in the debate.
Newspapers exist to report news, not create it. This is none of your business Murray, go back to where YOU live and stand for council there if you want to get involved in local politics. There is no reason for the involvement of Business South. This is just another unnecessary shakedown to rip off the public in their own city for £40 + Vat. Its easy; the Art Gallery stays open late, the attendants put some folding chairs out. The public come in, sit down to listen and take part in the debate. skydog2
  • Score: 9

2:17pm Tue 18 Feb 14

The Watcher says...

How ironic that a debate on cultural vandalism and the short term goal of raking in ££££s is only accessible by purchasing a ticket.
.
The historic leaders of our City, be they Councillors, Mayors, Alderman, businessmen or plain old citizens would be ashamed of this short term approach and even more ashamed that an event of this kind has been planned.
.
Shameful.
.
A Conservative concerned about this great City's heritage
How ironic that a debate on cultural vandalism and the short term goal of raking in ££££s is only accessible by purchasing a ticket. . The historic leaders of our City, be they Councillors, Mayors, Alderman, businessmen or plain old citizens would be ashamed of this short term approach and even more ashamed that an event of this kind has been planned. . Shameful. . A Conservative concerned about this great City's heritage The Watcher
  • Score: 8

2:26pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Outside of the Box says...

Tickets cost £20 plus VAT for Business South champions, £30 plus VAT for Business South associates and £40 plus VAT for other delegates????? WTF is the Council Chamber for? We elected Councillors to run our city not organise this American style circus (Pardon the Chipperfield pun)

If a proposal comes before the council is should be debated openly and the elected members given a free vote to decide what happens to the pieces of art, kept or sold, the majority win, job done once and for all.
Tickets cost £20 plus VAT for Business South champions, £30 plus VAT for Business South associates and £40 plus VAT for other delegates????? WTF is the Council Chamber for? We elected Councillors to run our city not organise this American style circus (Pardon the Chipperfield pun) If a proposal comes before the council is should be debated openly and the elected members given a free vote to decide what happens to the pieces of art, kept or sold, the majority win, job done once and for all. Outside of the Box
  • Score: 2

2:29pm Tue 18 Feb 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

The Watcher wrote:
How ironic that a debate on cultural vandalism and the short term goal of raking in ££££s is only accessible by purchasing a ticket.
.
The historic leaders of our City, be they Councillors, Mayors, Alderman, businessmen or plain old citizens would be ashamed of this short term approach and even more ashamed that an event of this kind has been planned.
.
Shameful.
.
A Conservative concerned about this great City's heritage
As a Labour supporter I completely agree with you. This looks like a cynical exercise when this debate which should be open to all. I could understand a very small charge to help cover its costs, but not the exorbitant prices quoted here. It ensures that only those with vested interests will be able to attend and makes it utterly unrepresentative.
[quote][p][bold]The Watcher[/bold] wrote: How ironic that a debate on cultural vandalism and the short term goal of raking in ££££s is only accessible by purchasing a ticket. . The historic leaders of our City, be they Councillors, Mayors, Alderman, businessmen or plain old citizens would be ashamed of this short term approach and even more ashamed that an event of this kind has been planned. . Shameful. . A Conservative concerned about this great City's heritage[/p][/quote]As a Labour supporter I completely agree with you. This looks like a cynical exercise when this debate which should be open to all. I could understand a very small charge to help cover its costs, but not the exorbitant prices quoted here. It ensures that only those with vested interests will be able to attend and makes it utterly unrepresentative. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 6

3:16pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
They don't want a real debate, thats why they are making a charge for the tickets to keep people away, they want a one sided argument where the city looks like its in favour of selling the art when in reality its not..
The rules about the art will not allow the city to sell apart from buying more art or for the purpose building that is solely for art (that means nothing else connected to the building like shops)
I for one would like to know how you came to this conclusion about the tickets, is it hear say or is it merely a personal conclusion/assumptio


n?

As for the rules, rules are made to be broken so you can bleat on about it all you want - if the decision to sell is made, they will be sold.
You never do like to read to much do you shoong

"You can attend the event by emailing bookings@business south.org or calling 023 8068 2520.

Tickets cost £20 plus VAT for Business South champions, £30 plus VAT for Business South associates and £40 plus VAT for other delegates."
So how does this constitute a one sided argument? Ah - will this be only the minority right rich that can afford these tickets?

As you care so much, you'll be going to attend so you can get back to us and tell us what *really* happened.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: They don't want a real debate, thats why they are making a charge for the tickets to keep people away, they want a one sided argument where the city looks like its in favour of selling the art when in reality its not.. The rules about the art will not allow the city to sell apart from buying more art or for the purpose building that is solely for art (that means nothing else connected to the building like shops)[/p][/quote]I for one would like to know how you came to this conclusion about the tickets, is it hear say or is it merely a personal conclusion/assumptio n? As for the rules, rules are made to be broken so you can bleat on about it all you want - if the decision to sell is made, they will be sold.[/p][/quote]You never do like to read to much do you shoong "You can attend the event by emailing bookings@business south.org or calling 023 8068 2520. Tickets cost £20 plus VAT for Business South champions, £30 plus VAT for Business South associates and £40 plus VAT for other delegates."[/p][/quote]So how does this constitute a one sided argument? Ah - will this be only the minority right rich that can afford these tickets? As you care so much, you'll be going to attend so you can get back to us and tell us what *really* happened. Shoong
  • Score: -4

3:26pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Danae wrote:
The debate organiser is Business Solent.

It is a private sector organisation which operates paid-for seminars and events which are mainly attended by people attached to local firms which, in addition, pay an annual membership subscription to Business Solent.
Then they have no right to debate or decide and out come to some thing that as no concern of theirs, this is down to the residence only of Southampton to decide and not some out side organisation or any business in Southampton
If they have no right, then we can assume they are just wasting time and money on a fruitless exercise - makes perfect business sense.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: The debate organiser is Business Solent. It is a private sector organisation which operates paid-for seminars and events which are mainly attended by people attached to local firms which, in addition, pay an annual membership subscription to Business Solent.[/p][/quote]Then they have no right to debate or decide and out come to some thing that as no concern of theirs, this is down to the residence only of Southampton to decide and not some out side organisation or any business in Southampton[/p][/quote]If they have no right, then we can assume they are just wasting time and money on a fruitless exercise - makes perfect business sense. Shoong
  • Score: -1

3:45pm Tue 18 Feb 14

southy says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
They don't want a real debate, thats why they are making a charge for the tickets to keep people away, they want a one sided argument where the city looks like its in favour of selling the art when in reality its not..
The rules about the art will not allow the city to sell apart from buying more art or for the purpose building that is solely for art (that means nothing else connected to the building like shops)
I for one would like to know how you came to this conclusion about the tickets, is it hear say or is it merely a personal conclusion/assumptio



n?

As for the rules, rules are made to be broken so you can bleat on about it all you want - if the decision to sell is made, they will be sold.
You never do like to read to much do you shoong

"You can attend the event by emailing bookings@business south.org or calling 023 8068 2520.

Tickets cost £20 plus VAT for Business South champions, £30 plus VAT for Business South associates and £40 plus VAT for other delegates."
So how does this constitute a one sided argument? Ah - will this be only the minority right rich that can afford these tickets?

As you care so much, you'll be going to attend so you can get back to us and tell us what *really* happened.
You still not reading are you shoong as normal
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: They don't want a real debate, thats why they are making a charge for the tickets to keep people away, they want a one sided argument where the city looks like its in favour of selling the art when in reality its not.. The rules about the art will not allow the city to sell apart from buying more art or for the purpose building that is solely for art (that means nothing else connected to the building like shops)[/p][/quote]I for one would like to know how you came to this conclusion about the tickets, is it hear say or is it merely a personal conclusion/assumptio n? As for the rules, rules are made to be broken so you can bleat on about it all you want - if the decision to sell is made, they will be sold.[/p][/quote]You never do like to read to much do you shoong "You can attend the event by emailing bookings@business south.org or calling 023 8068 2520. Tickets cost £20 plus VAT for Business South champions, £30 plus VAT for Business South associates and £40 plus VAT for other delegates."[/p][/quote]So how does this constitute a one sided argument? Ah - will this be only the minority right rich that can afford these tickets? As you care so much, you'll be going to attend so you can get back to us and tell us what *really* happened.[/p][/quote]You still not reading are you shoong as normal southy
  • Score: 5

7:46pm Tue 18 Feb 14

in search of the truth says...

One thing is evidently clear .
Southampton should never ever try and put itself forward again as a city of culture, as the city fathers ( council ) have no idea what constitutes culture.
Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future .
The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again.
One thing is evidently clear . Southampton should never ever try and put itself forward again as a city of culture, as the city fathers ( council ) have no idea what constitutes culture. Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future . The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again. in search of the truth
  • Score: 1

8:32pm Tue 18 Feb 14

sotonboy84 says...

in search of the truth wrote:
One thing is evidently clear .
Southampton should never ever try and put itself forward again as a city of culture, as the city fathers ( council ) have no idea what constitutes culture.
Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future .
The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again.
The weirdo from Liverpool is back to belittle Southampton.

Southampton has one of the finest art collections in the country, designated by the government as being of ''national pre-eminence'. Enough said.
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: One thing is evidently clear . Southampton should never ever try and put itself forward again as a city of culture, as the city fathers ( council ) have no idea what constitutes culture. Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future . The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again.[/p][/quote]The weirdo from Liverpool is back to belittle Southampton. Southampton has one of the finest art collections in the country, designated by the government as being of ''national pre-eminence'. Enough said. sotonboy84
  • Score: 3

8:34pm Tue 18 Feb 14

sotonboy84 says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
They don't want a real debate, thats why they are making a charge for the tickets to keep people away, they want a one sided argument where the city looks like its in favour of selling the art when in reality its not..
The rules about the art will not allow the city to sell apart from buying more art or for the purpose building that is solely for art (that means nothing else connected to the building like shops)
I for one would like to know how you came to this conclusion about the tickets, is it hear say or is it merely a personal conclusion/assumptio

n?

As for the rules, rules are made to be broken so you can bleat on about it all you want - if the decision to sell is made, they will be sold.
I agree with Southy and it's not about breaking rules, it's about breaking the law. Most pieces in the collection have been bought with money from trusts or bequeathed in a way that makes it illegal to sell them unless the funds are used entirely to enhance or support the existing collection.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: They don't want a real debate, thats why they are making a charge for the tickets to keep people away, they want a one sided argument where the city looks like its in favour of selling the art when in reality its not.. The rules about the art will not allow the city to sell apart from buying more art or for the purpose building that is solely for art (that means nothing else connected to the building like shops)[/p][/quote]I for one would like to know how you came to this conclusion about the tickets, is it hear say or is it merely a personal conclusion/assumptio n? As for the rules, rules are made to be broken so you can bleat on about it all you want - if the decision to sell is made, they will be sold.[/p][/quote]I agree with Southy and it's not about breaking rules, it's about breaking the law. Most pieces in the collection have been bought with money from trusts or bequeathed in a way that makes it illegal to sell them unless the funds are used entirely to enhance or support the existing collection. sotonboy84
  • Score: 2

10:21pm Tue 18 Feb 14

in search of the truth says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
One thing is evidently clear .
Southampton should never ever try and put itself forward again as a city of culture, as the city fathers ( council ) have no idea what constitutes culture.
Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future .
The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again.
The weirdo from Liverpool is back to belittle Southampton.

Southampton has one of the finest art collections in the country, designated by the government as being of ''national pre-eminence'. Enough said.
I am trying to make the point that if you start selling it off it won't be of " national importance " will it.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: One thing is evidently clear . Southampton should never ever try and put itself forward again as a city of culture, as the city fathers ( council ) have no idea what constitutes culture. Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future . The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again.[/p][/quote]The weirdo from Liverpool is back to belittle Southampton. Southampton has one of the finest art collections in the country, designated by the government as being of ''national pre-eminence'. Enough said.[/p][/quote]I am trying to make the point that if you start selling it off it won't be of " national importance " will it. in search of the truth
  • Score: 0

8:48am Wed 19 Feb 14

skeptik says...

We used to see signs around towns, Public Property - By Order of .....Council. The 1970s saw changes to 'Private Property' ......
by order of.......The mentality changed too, councils no longer administered public property - the new overmanned councils appointed many CEOs with obscure titles, who believed we should rate them along with the private sector. They paid themselves and acted like the private sector - without the fear of failure - truth is failure paid dividends as they played musical chairs (without taking a chair away) off with a golden handshake and a pension to find a new seat with a golden hello! We have many a town run by many a useless council - who believe they rule and not administer - we could demand a new way forward with a review of how we run local government - it surely cannot go on failing year after year.
We used to see signs around towns, Public Property - By Order of .....Council. The 1970s saw changes to 'Private Property' ...... by order of.......The mentality changed too, councils no longer administered public property - the new overmanned councils appointed many CEOs with obscure titles, who believed we should rate them along with the private sector. They paid themselves and acted like the private sector - without the fear of failure - truth is failure paid dividends as they played musical chairs (without taking a chair away) off with a golden handshake and a pension to find a new seat with a golden hello! We have many a town run by many a useless council - who believe they rule and not administer - we could demand a new way forward with a review of how we run local government - it surely cannot go on failing year after year. skeptik
  • Score: 2

10:52am Wed 19 Feb 14

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
They don't want a real debate, thats why they are making a charge for the tickets to keep people away, they want a one sided argument where the city looks like its in favour of selling the art when in reality its not..
The rules about the art will not allow the city to sell apart from buying more art or for the purpose building that is solely for art (that means nothing else connected to the building like shops)
I for one would like to know how you came to this conclusion about the tickets, is it hear say or is it merely a personal conclusion/assumptio




n?

As for the rules, rules are made to be broken so you can bleat on about it all you want - if the decision to sell is made, they will be sold.
You never do like to read to much do you shoong

"You can attend the event by emailing bookings@business south.org or calling 023 8068 2520.

Tickets cost £20 plus VAT for Business South champions, £30 plus VAT for Business South associates and £40 plus VAT for other delegates."
So how does this constitute a one sided argument? Ah - will this be only the minority right rich that can afford these tickets?

As you care so much, you'll be going to attend so you can get back to us and tell us what *really* happened.
You still not reading are you shoong as normal
Ok, let's say I didn't.

That still makes you a hypocrite.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: They don't want a real debate, thats why they are making a charge for the tickets to keep people away, they want a one sided argument where the city looks like its in favour of selling the art when in reality its not.. The rules about the art will not allow the city to sell apart from buying more art or for the purpose building that is solely for art (that means nothing else connected to the building like shops)[/p][/quote]I for one would like to know how you came to this conclusion about the tickets, is it hear say or is it merely a personal conclusion/assumptio n? As for the rules, rules are made to be broken so you can bleat on about it all you want - if the decision to sell is made, they will be sold.[/p][/quote]You never do like to read to much do you shoong "You can attend the event by emailing bookings@business south.org or calling 023 8068 2520. Tickets cost £20 plus VAT for Business South champions, £30 plus VAT for Business South associates and £40 plus VAT for other delegates."[/p][/quote]So how does this constitute a one sided argument? Ah - will this be only the minority right rich that can afford these tickets? As you care so much, you'll be going to attend so you can get back to us and tell us what *really* happened.[/p][/quote]You still not reading are you shoong as normal[/p][/quote]Ok, let's say I didn't. That still makes you a hypocrite. Shoong
  • Score: -2

12:16pm Wed 19 Feb 14

sotonboy84 says...

in search of the truth wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
One thing is evidently clear .
Southampton should never ever try and put itself forward again as a city of culture, as the city fathers ( council ) have no idea what constitutes culture.
Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future .
The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again.
The weirdo from Liverpool is back to belittle Southampton.

Southampton has one of the finest art collections in the country, designated by the government as being of ''national pre-eminence'. Enough said.
I am trying to make the point that if you start selling it off it won't be of " national importance " will it.
You have a strange way of putting that point across then - "Southampton should never ever try and put itself forward again as a city of culture".

Just because some greedy city councillors want to cash in on selling pieces from the collection, it does not mean that the city lacks culture or it's culture should never be celebrated.

Your advice would be well used in your home city of Liverpool regarding the threat of the waterfront losing it's 'World Heritage Site' status because the greedy leader of the council wants to build flats on the docks and doesn't care if this status is lost.
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: One thing is evidently clear . Southampton should never ever try and put itself forward again as a city of culture, as the city fathers ( council ) have no idea what constitutes culture. Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future . The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again.[/p][/quote]The weirdo from Liverpool is back to belittle Southampton. Southampton has one of the finest art collections in the country, designated by the government as being of ''national pre-eminence'. Enough said.[/p][/quote]I am trying to make the point that if you start selling it off it won't be of " national importance " will it.[/p][/quote]You have a strange way of putting that point across then - "Southampton should never ever try and put itself forward again as a city of culture". Just because some greedy city councillors want to cash in on selling pieces from the collection, it does not mean that the city lacks culture or it's culture should never be celebrated. Your advice would be well used in your home city of Liverpool regarding the threat of the waterfront losing it's 'World Heritage Site' status because the greedy leader of the council wants to build flats on the docks and doesn't care if this status is lost. sotonboy84
  • Score: -1

3:35pm Wed 19 Feb 14

in search of the truth says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
One thing is evidently clear .
Southampton should never ever try and put itself forward again as a city of culture, as the city fathers ( council ) have no idea what constitutes culture.
Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future .
The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again.
The weirdo from Liverpool is back to belittle Southampton.

Southampton has one of the finest art collections in the country, designated by the government as being of ''national pre-eminence'. Enough said.
I am trying to make the point that if you start selling it off it won't be of " national importance " will it.
You have a strange way of putting that point across then - "Southampton should never ever try and put itself forward again as a city of culture".

Just because some greedy city councillors want to cash in on selling pieces from the collection, it does not mean that the city lacks culture or it's culture should never be celebrated.

Your advice would be well used in your home city of Liverpool regarding the threat of the waterfront losing it's 'World Heritage Site' status because the greedy leader of the council wants to build flats on the docks and doesn't care if this status is lost.
sotonboy84 says..

You have a strange way of putting that point across then - "Southampton should never ever try and put itself forward again as a city of culture".

Just because some greedy city councillors want to cash in on selling pieces from the collection, it does not mean that the city lacks culture or it's culture should never be celebrated.

Your advice would be well used in your home city of Liverpool regarding the threat of the waterfront losing it's 'World Heritage Site' status because the greedy leader of the council wants to build flats on the docks and doesn't care if this status is lost.

--------------------
--------------------
----
You have completely twisted what I said. If you read what I said in full it makes complete sense that no budding philanthropist will ever trust your city fathers if they sell items previously bequeathed to your city.

I said ...............

" One thing is evidently clear .
Southampton should never ever try and put itself forward again as a city of culture, as the city fathers ( council ) have no idea what constitutes culture.

( This statement above applies if the city fathers allow the sale )

Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future .
The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again. "

--------------------
---------------

With regard to your comment.............
..

" Your advice would be well used in your home city of Liverpool regarding the threat of the waterfront losing it's 'World Heritage Site' status because the greedy leader of the council wants to build flats on the docks and doesn't care if this status is lost. "

--------------------
---------

The World Heritage Site is not 1 single site but 6 distinct area's around the city centre and waterfront. Concern has been raised about the impact of the " Liverpool Waters " as it lies along the waterfront north of the Stanley Dock area of the WHS.

http://www.liverpool
worldheritage.com/Im
ages/Printable_map_w
ith_street_names.pdf


It is huge in scale, up to 1,691,000 square meters, which it is planned will include offices, homes, cultural facilities, retail and leisure provision and a second, larger cruise ship terminal .No city in the World can afford to ignore a development of this size , it is too important a development to dismiss and hopefully will go ahead with compromises from both the developers, UNESCO and English Heritage. The development is to be phased over a long time scale and certainly won't be simply blocks of flats.

http://www.theguardi
an.com/uk/the-northe
rner/2013/mar/07/liv
erpool-architecture-
peelgroup-mersey-wir
ral-docks-regenerati
on
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: One thing is evidently clear . Southampton should never ever try and put itself forward again as a city of culture, as the city fathers ( council ) have no idea what constitutes culture. Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future . The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again.[/p][/quote]The weirdo from Liverpool is back to belittle Southampton. Southampton has one of the finest art collections in the country, designated by the government as being of ''national pre-eminence'. Enough said.[/p][/quote]I am trying to make the point that if you start selling it off it won't be of " national importance " will it.[/p][/quote]You have a strange way of putting that point across then - "Southampton should never ever try and put itself forward again as a city of culture". Just because some greedy city councillors want to cash in on selling pieces from the collection, it does not mean that the city lacks culture or it's culture should never be celebrated. Your advice would be well used in your home city of Liverpool regarding the threat of the waterfront losing it's 'World Heritage Site' status because the greedy leader of the council wants to build flats on the docks and doesn't care if this status is lost.[/p][/quote]sotonboy84 says.. You have a strange way of putting that point across then - "Southampton should never ever try and put itself forward again as a city of culture". Just because some greedy city councillors want to cash in on selling pieces from the collection, it does not mean that the city lacks culture or it's culture should never be celebrated. Your advice would be well used in your home city of Liverpool regarding the threat of the waterfront losing it's 'World Heritage Site' status because the greedy leader of the council wants to build flats on the docks and doesn't care if this status is lost. -------------------- -------------------- ---- You have completely twisted what I said. If you read what I said in full it makes complete sense that no budding philanthropist will ever trust your city fathers if they sell items previously bequeathed to your city. I said ............... " One thing is evidently clear . Southampton should never ever try and put itself forward again as a city of culture, as the city fathers ( council ) have no idea what constitutes culture. ( This statement above applies if the city fathers allow the sale ) Once you sell off the family silver you won't ever be in a position to buy it back in future . The art collections held in trust by towns and cities have been bestowed to the citizens in those towns and cities by rich philanthropists for the benefit of all citizens . If you sell off parts of your cultural heritage then nobody will want to bestow their collections of art etc. to the city, because they will never trust those in power ever again. " -------------------- --------------- With regard to your comment............. .. " Your advice would be well used in your home city of Liverpool regarding the threat of the waterfront losing it's 'World Heritage Site' status because the greedy leader of the council wants to build flats on the docks and doesn't care if this status is lost. " -------------------- --------- The World Heritage Site is not 1 single site but 6 distinct area's around the city centre and waterfront. Concern has been raised about the impact of the " Liverpool Waters " as it lies along the waterfront north of the Stanley Dock area of the WHS. http://www.liverpool worldheritage.com/Im ages/Printable_map_w ith_street_names.pdf It is huge in scale, up to 1,691,000 square meters, which it is planned will include offices, homes, cultural facilities, retail and leisure provision and a second, larger cruise ship terminal .No city in the World can afford to ignore a development of this size , it is too important a development to dismiss and hopefully will go ahead with compromises from both the developers, UNESCO and English Heritage. The development is to be phased over a long time scale and certainly won't be simply blocks of flats. http://www.theguardi an.com/uk/the-northe rner/2013/mar/07/liv erpool-architecture- peelgroup-mersey-wir ral-docks-regenerati on in search of the truth
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree