Attorney General to rule on artwork sale (From Daily Echo)

meanwhile... Southampton's 2nd oldest church, crumbles away for the sake of 200k. It's been there 900 years and it's grounds is buried Admiral Bullen, who fought with Nelson at Trafalgar.
but heigh ho, lets just sell off our valuables to celebrate a maritime failure (caused by negligence), rather than celebrate a somewhat more successful mariner.
Is Baroness Scotland a fit person to make this decision? since she couldn't even be bothered to check her own staffs paperwork?
pathetic.

Tbh, I don't think they will take any notice if the AG says no they can't! I really don't see what the problem is here, just put it on hold until they can fund from lottery, Arts Council or in some other way (not borrowing though!). This Council seem to be devoid of common sense and seem intent on alienating themselves from the electorate!

stuartjebbitt wrote:
meanwhile... Southampton's 2nd oldest church, crumbles away for the sake of 200k. It's been there 900 years and it's grounds is buried Admiral Bullen, who fought with Nelson at Trafalgar. but heigh ho, lets just sell off our valuables to celebrate a maritime failure (caused by negligence), rather than celebrate a somewhat more successful mariner. Is Baroness Scotland a fit person to make this decision? since she couldn't even be bothered to check her own staffs paperwork? pathetic.

Why did he fight with Nelson?
Was it something he said?

İ dont mind the sale for two pieces to pay for a museum and larger art gallery. Rather that than more taxes.

freemantlegirl - apparently the lottery will only pay out to 5 million which is why 5 million of donations and the art sale is needed

In this case the city could benefit from 5,000,000 quid of varied art rather than one very overpriced item. One statue and one painting are not *worth* the same as 25 family homes, but if someone's willing to pay that, why argue?

However, that's assuming the money is well spent, which I'm not. But, you never know, this time it might be different...

It was just over a year ago Alec Samuels.. in this very paper stated

"For ideological reasons we are going for outsourcing, externalisation, privatisation, wherever possible and sensible, especially but not exclusively in the leisure and recreation area."

Which begs the question. If he is so in favour of privitisation then what is his administration doing getting involved in what seems to be some kind of titanic theme park?

mr.southampton wrote:
It was just over a year ago Alec Samuels.. in this very paper stated

"For ideological reasons we are going for outsourcing, externalisation, privatisation, wherever possible and sensible, especially but not exclusively in the leisure and recreation area."

Which begs the question. If he is so in favour of privitisation then what is his administration doing getting involved in what seems to be some kind of titanic theme park?

PMSL!! brilliant!! and spot on!

MrGMan, predictable as ever.... why not part fund it with lottery then! five million is a LOT of money...makes me think that this isn't solely about funding musuems...

Linesman wrote:

stuartjebbitt wrote:
meanwhile... Southampton's 2nd oldest church, crumbles away for the sake of 200k. It's been there 900 years and it's grounds is buried Admiral Bullen, who fought with Nelson at Trafalgar. but heigh ho, lets just sell off our valuables to celebrate a maritime failure (caused by negligence), rather than celebrate a somewhat more successful mariner. Is Baroness Scotland a fit person to make this decision? since she couldn't even be bothered to check her own staffs paperwork? pathetic.

Why did he fight with Nelson?
Was it something he said?

yes nelson siad he was not allowed his daily ration of grog.

stuartjebbitt they are not going to worrie about famous graves. you only got to look at what they done to millbrook grave yard to know that.

whitch reminds me, those living in castle court, tonight showing on the big screen is halloween1. and tomorrow night halloween2 and 3 the following night and so forth.

mrgman, what i find amusing, is that all those tory voters that wanted the poll tax, and by the way the council tax we got today is a poll tax, are now paying just over twice has much tax, than they would if still under the rates system.and that is taken into account the rising coast.
now my question is what the hell you spending or wasting the tax money on. because its deffently not on front line work force yet you want to cut them, and its not front line services, could it be that you spending the money on top people wages and for things that will never come to light, the torys have been in control of the council now nearly 1 1/2 years. money for those sort of things you should have and still not worry about next year tax rises.

southy wrote:
mrgman, what i find amusing, is that all those tory voters that wanted the poll tax, and by the way the council tax we got today is a poll tax, are now paying just over twice has much tax, than they would if still under the rates system.and that is taken into account the rising coast. now my question is what the hell you spending or wasting the tax money on. because its deffently not on front line work force yet you want to cut them, and its not front line services, could it be that you spending the money on top people wages and for things that will never come to light, the torys have been in control of the council now nearly 1 1/2 years. money for those sort of things you should have and still not worry about next year tax rises.

We got the council tax as a compromise as no hopers refused to pay their share of the very fair poll tax. Labour has abused the council tax to increase the tax burden and fooling the public into thinking they were a low taxation party. You can't pin the increase in council tax on the tories.

southy wrote:

Linesman wrote:

stuartjebbitt wrote:
meanwhile... Southampton's 2nd oldest church, crumbles away for the sake of 200k. It's been there 900 years and it's grounds is buried Admiral Bullen, who fought with Nelson at Trafalgar. but heigh ho, lets just sell off our valuables to celebrate a maritime failure (caused by negligence), rather than celebrate a somewhat more successful mariner. Is Baroness Scotland a fit person to make this decision? since she couldn't even be bothered to check her own staffs paperwork? pathetic.

Why did he fight with Nelson?
Was it something he said?

yes nelson siad he was not allowed his daily ration of grog.

stuartjebbitt they are not going to worrie about famous graves. you only got to look at what they done to millbrook grave yard to know that.

whitch reminds me, those living in castle court, tonight showing on the big screen is halloween1. and tomorrow night halloween2 and 3 the following night and so forth.

Have I missed something>? is someone famous buried in Millbrook? LOL.... or about to be.. in the colloquial sense of course ;)!

Why do I feel that the WHOLE system of governing this country many of us suspect that those in a high office such as the Attorney General who had caught the attention of Police, to decide on OUR pictures to be sold, albeit, to the uninformed eye, does not turn many of us on. I may regret saying this but is it in my imagination that the whole Nation does not trust anyone, either in high office or the bloke next door and they are all working in a wheel within a wheel - yes, politics has become a dirty word and it is time we sort out the wood from the chaff and get back to respect of our governing bodies.

goard

goard

You're getting so worked up, you can't see the wheat for the trees

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

southy wrote:

Linesman wrote:

stuartjebbitt wrote:
meanwhile... Southampton's 2nd oldest church, crumbles away for the sake of 200k. It's been there 900 years and it's grounds is buried Admiral Bullen, who fought with Nelson at Trafalgar. but heigh ho, lets just sell off our valuables to celebrate a maritime failure (caused by negligence), rather than celebrate a somewhat more successful mariner. Is Baroness Scotland a fit person to make this decision? since she couldn't even be bothered to check her own staffs paperwork? pathetic.

Why did he fight with Nelson?
Was it something he said?

yes nelson siad he was not allowed his daily ration of grog.

stuartjebbitt they are not going to worrie about famous graves. you only got to look at what they done to millbrook grave yard to know that.

whitch reminds me, those living in castle court, tonight showing on the big screen is halloween1. and tomorrow night halloween2 and 3 the following night and so forth.

Have I missed something>? is someone famous buried in Millbrook? LOL.... or about to be.. in the colloquial sense of course ;)!

there was a high number well know people buried there, the grave yard dated back well before the norman conquest and was one off the oldest in the country and there was one person that use to come over from australia to visit her mum and dad grave, it was also a s.s.i, well it was the dead centre of the village

condor any type of poll tax is unfair tax, it deals with head count and dont really take how much space you want, ie a rich man house could take up the room for 2 houses or a whole estate, and just because some people have big familys it dont mean that they are using more services, no the old rates system was the most fairest type of local tax there could of been, it deterred wealthy people from taken up to much space, and when you think about it a bit longer, 2 homes will bring in more revenue than 1 big home with a big garden, if people wants this sort of thing then they should pay extra for it, because all they are doing is cutting down the number of homes that could be built.

stuartjebbitt wrote:
meanwhile... Southampton's 2nd oldest church, crumbles away for the sake of 200k. It's been there 900 years and it's grounds is buried Admiral Bullen, who fought with Nelson at Trafalgar. but heigh ho, lets just sell off our valuables to celebrate a maritime failure (caused by negligence), rather than celebrate a somewhat more successful mariner. Is Baroness Scotland a fit person to make this decision? since she couldn't even be bothered to check her own staffs paperwork? pathetic.

Take it up with the Church of England. Buildings of that age do not crumble overnight!
Perhaps they should've addressed it earlier rather than wait until it is too late and then go cap in hand outside of their congregation.
You never know perhaps the made up chap who sees everything, hears everyone and created everything will intervene!

Unlike the current crop the late Councillor Chipperfield, did not draw large salary but thought serving the people was greatest honour.
Rather than creating healthy bank balance for himself out of taxpayer’s money, like the current lot, he donated very large and expensive art collection, which has put our City firmly on the international Art Map. Are we the people of Southampton today sunk so low to let the memory of great generous man like Robert Chipperfield tarnished by these Tories who want to betray his trust?
Answer to the problem is simple; Council can’t have what it can’t afford. Look after what the city has got, and do not blow it on a pie in the sky. Unless of course real agenda is to line the pockets of well connected builders and consultants under the excuse of a new museum.

Thanks Mr. Southampton for reminding us the evil desires of Norah Goss compliant Cllr. Alec Samuels. (Poor girl only other choice she had was a Freemason’s wife Bridle) Didn’t he express those on some national web site of Cameron’s Conservative, who are aping Blair, Brown and Mandelson in how to mislead the public till they get into power and then show their real fangs?
Morality and Conservatives can’t be combined. Immorally and betraying trust are Tory instincts like biting is with snakes.
Considering she could not even understand her own authored laws on immigration I am not too sure about asking Baroness Scotland for advice.
This shear madness by the Tories can only be stopped by the people to stand up and get counted in opposing the sale of what was donated to the city with a much better person than the current breed of councillors.
Answer to your last question may lie in the pockets of consultants and builders, who will mint money out of this folly, which may have been dreamed up in some Freemasons lodge.

southy wrote:

Linesman wrote:

stuartjebbitt wrote: meanwhile... Southampton's 2nd oldest church, crumbles away for the sake of 200k. It's been there 900 years and it's grounds is buried Admiral Bullen, who fought with Nelson at Trafalgar. but heigh ho, lets just sell off our valuables to celebrate a maritime failure (caused by negligence), rather than celebrate a somewhat more successful mariner. Is Baroness Scotland a fit person to make this decision? since she couldn't even be bothered to check her own staffs paperwork? pathetic.

Why did he fight with Nelson? Was it something he said?

yes nelson siad he was not allowed his daily ration of grog. stuartjebbitt they are not going to worrie about famous graves. you only got to look at what they done to millbrook grave yard to know that. whitch reminds me, those living in castle court, tonight showing on the big screen is halloween1. and tomorrow night halloween2 and 3 the following night and so forth.

Bit of a rum do then Southy!

Linesman wrote:

southy wrote:

Linesman wrote:

stuartjebbitt wrote: meanwhile... Southampton's 2nd oldest church, crumbles away for the sake of 200k. It's been there 900 years and it's grounds is buried Admiral Bullen, who fought with Nelson at Trafalgar. but heigh ho, lets just sell off our valuables to celebrate a maritime failure (caused by negligence), rather than celebrate a somewhat more successful mariner. Is Baroness Scotland a fit person to make this decision? since she couldn't even be bothered to check her own staffs paperwork? pathetic.

Why did he fight with Nelson? Was it something he said?

yes nelson siad he was not allowed his daily ration of grog. stuartjebbitt they are not going to worrie about famous graves. you only got to look at what they done to millbrook grave yard to know that. whitch reminds me, those living in castle court, tonight showing on the big screen is halloween1. and tomorrow night halloween2 and 3 the following night and so forth.

Bit of a rum do then Southy!

yes there was no frigging in the rigging.

MrGMan wrote:
İ dont mind the sale for two pieces to pay for a museum and larger art gallery. Rather that than more taxes. freemantlegirl - apparently the lottery will only pay out to 5 million which is why 5 million of donations and the art sale is needed

Shame you weren't so quick off the mark to answer my question about the about justifying of expenditure on yesterdays posts

Lone Ranger wrote:

MrGMan wrote:
İ dont mind the sale for two pieces to pay for a museum and larger art gallery. Rather that than more taxes. freemantlegirl - apparently the lottery will only pay out to 5 million which is why 5 million of donations and the art sale is needed

Shame you weren't so quick off the mark to answer my question about the about justifying of expenditure on yesterdays posts

Perhaps I should have asked the question LR, I seem to have upset him so he's following me about lol. He still hasn't convinced anyone 'why' the art sale is needed, as i said put the whole thing on hold!

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Lone Ranger wrote:

MrGMan wrote:
İ dont mind the sale for two pieces to pay for a museum and larger art gallery. Rather that than more taxes. freemantlegirl - apparently the lottery will only pay out to 5 million which is why 5 million of donations and the art sale is needed

Shame you weren't so quick off the mark to answer my question about the about justifying of expenditure on yesterdays posts

Perhaps I should have asked the question LR, I seem to have upset him so he's following me about lol. He still hasn't convinced anyone 'why' the art sale is needed, as i said put the whole thing on hold!

Does it matter which of you asked the question? You both bore on with your political point scoring for your paymasters.

As I see it... The art sale is needed to fund a project that will increase the space for art in Southampton without raising the already weighty burden on Southampton taxpayers. I note that our local MPs called on the Council to raise this burden higher - hardly surprising when they're part of the Government that has crippled this country with debt for countless generations - but that's ok in your blinkered world. Will more people or less visit Southampton if this project go ahead? Not even the most myopic political cyber warrior would argue less, no doubt you're going to try though.

southy wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

southy wrote:

Linesman wrote:

stuartjebbitt wrote:
meanwhile... Southampton's 2nd oldest church, crumbles away for the sake of 200k. It's been there 900 years and it's grounds is buried Admiral Bullen, who fought with Nelson at Trafalgar. but heigh ho, lets just sell off our valuables to celebrate a maritime failure (caused by negligence), rather than celebrate a somewhat more successful mariner. Is Baroness Scotland a fit person to make this decision? since she couldn't even be bothered to check her own staffs paperwork? pathetic.

Why did he fight with Nelson?
Was it something he said?

yes nelson siad he was not allowed his daily ration of grog.

stuartjebbitt they are not going to worrie about famous graves. you only got to look at what they done to millbrook grave yard to know that.

whitch reminds me, those living in castle court, tonight showing on the big screen is halloween1. and tomorrow night halloween2 and 3 the following night and so forth.

Have I missed something>? is someone famous buried in Millbrook? LOL.... or about to be.. in the colloquial sense of course ;)!

there was a high number well know people buried there, the grave yard dated back well before the norman conquest and was one off the oldest in the country and there was one person that use to come over from australia to visit her mum and dad grave, it was also a s.s.i, well it was the dead centre of the village

So Millbrook graveyard is "the dead centre of the village" is it? Couldn't resist Southy.
On subject, I don't mind selling art that would otherwise be hidden from view provided money raised is wisely spent and to the benefit of Southampton people although I still can't understand the obsession with the Titanic or why it should warrant a £15 million exhibition - I'd like to add that the way the council screws up cost forecasts £15 mill is ironically just the tip of the iceberg.
Surely Soton has more worth celebrating and recognising than a 100 year old shipping disaster?

senseofsouthampton wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Lone Ranger wrote:

MrGMan wrote: İ dont mind the sale for two pieces to pay for a museum and larger art gallery. Rather that than more taxes. freemantlegirl - apparently the lottery will only pay out to 5 million which is why 5 million of donations and the art sale is needed

Shame you weren't so quick off the mark to answer my question about the about justifying of expenditure on yesterdays posts

Perhaps I should have asked the question LR, I seem to have upset him so he's following me about lol. He still hasn't convinced anyone 'why' the art sale is needed, as i said put the whole thing on hold!

Does it matter which of you asked the question? You both bore on with your political point scoring for your paymasters. As I see it... The art sale is needed to fund a project that will increase the space for art in Southampton without raising the already weighty burden on Southampton taxpayers. I note that our local MPs called on the Council to raise this burden higher - hardly surprising when they're part of the Government that has crippled this country with debt for countless generations - but that's ok in your blinkered world. Will more people or less visit Southampton if this project go ahead? Not even the most myopic political cyber warrior would argue less, no doubt you're going to try though.

Dear Sense of Southampton,
Didn’t you spend your time in the armed services to protect the very freedom of expression to which you seem to be objecting?
Obviously you hold different views on sale of Southampton’s inheritance than some of us. I respect your right to do so. Could you extend the same courtesy to others please and not accuse opponents of having paymasters. I don’t think anybody on this site to be like that.
I can understand why you are in favour of this sale. But other side of the argument (which I support is) immorality of betraying the trust put into this council by generous donors to this collection. If their wishes are not respected it could discourage other possible public spirited people from donating items to the gallery.
It would have been a different matter if these pieces were bought with tax payers money.
Yes our MP Whitehead’s suggestion to borrow for Titanic museum will increase the debt burden. That is why I have opposed it and suggested not to start dreaming what City can’t afford.
Also having seen plenty of pies in the sky of this council fail in the past, I am suspicious about this one as well.
Basic reason for the existence of Council is to provide residents with certain core services, something for which this council is not exactly famous. I mostly know this Council (Under all three parties) to be much better and real life version of comedy ‘Yes Minister’.
Highly paid pen pushers keep on coming up with their favourite projects, easily convince gullible elected members, and when these things do not work Councillors are left holding the baby. Then they lose the election and other party ends in control, to hit the same buffers. Just like we keep on passing time on this site.
Kind regards

senseofsouthampton, I see you´ve fallen for the Hannides spin. Let´s hope the Attorney General sees through it. The council plan won´t increase the size of the art gallery - under the SCC plan, any touring art exhibitions will be placed in part (ie an exhibition hall) of Sea City. But that´s going to be full of Titanic stuff in 2012 and who knows what else after that? The touring art exhibitions should be in the art gallery, where they draw people in and increase public enjoyment of the other artworks. To put the touring art exhibitions next door (when they aren´t using the space for other things) is just barmy.

Swalk wrote:
senseofsouthampton, I see you´ve fallen for the Hannides spin. Let´s hope the Attorney General sees through it. The council plan won´t increase the size of the art gallery - under the SCC plan, any touring art exhibitions will be placed in part (ie an exhibition hall) of Sea City. But that´s going to be full of Titanic stuff in 2012 and who knows what else after that? The touring art exhibitions should be in the art gallery, where they draw people in and increase public enjoyment of the other artworks. To put the touring art exhibitions next door (when they aren´t using the space for other things) is just barmy.

Will more or less people visit southampton if the Sea City museum is built? I think more will and each of those additional visitors will bring in money to the city.
It just makes me laugh that all these so called socialists are against selling art. Even if the idea is to improve the situation for everyone some people can't see past their prejudices.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

senseofsouthampton wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Lone Ranger wrote:

MrGMan wrote: İ dont mind the sale for two pieces to pay for a museum and larger art gallery. Rather that than more taxes. freemantlegirl - apparently the lottery will only pay out to 5 million which is why 5 million of donations and the art sale is needed

Shame you weren't so quick off the mark to answer my question about the about justifying of expenditure on yesterdays posts

Perhaps I should have asked the question LR, I seem to have upset him so he's following me about lol. He still hasn't convinced anyone 'why' the art sale is needed, as i said put the whole thing on hold!

Does it matter which of you asked the question? You both bore on with your political point scoring for your paymasters. As I see it... The art sale is needed to fund a project that will increase the space for art in Southampton without raising the already weighty burden on Southampton taxpayers. I note that our local MPs called on the Council to raise this burden higher - hardly surprising when they're part of the Government that has crippled this country with debt for countless generations - but that's ok in your blinkered world. Will more people or less visit Southampton if this project go ahead? Not even the most myopic political cyber warrior would argue less, no doubt you're going to try though.

Dear Sense of Southampton,
Didn’t you spend your time in the armed services to protect the very freedom of expression to which you seem to be objecting?
Obviously you hold different views on sale of Southampton’s inheritance than some of us. I respect your right to do so. Could you extend the same courtesy to others please and not accuse opponents of having paymasters. I don’t think anybody on this site to be like that.
I can understand why you are in favour of this sale. But other side of the argument (which I support is) immorality of betraying the trust put into this council by generous donors to this collection. If their wishes are not respected it could discourage other possible public spirited people from donating items to the gallery.
It would have been a different matter if these pieces were bought with tax payers money.
Yes our MP Whitehead’s suggestion to borrow for Titanic museum will increase the debt burden. That is why I have opposed it and suggested not to start dreaming what City can’t afford.
Also having seen plenty of pies in the sky of this council fail in the past, I am suspicious about this one as well.
Basic reason for the existence of Council is to provide residents with certain core services, something for which this council is not exactly famous. I mostly know this Council (Under all three parties) to be much better and real life version of comedy ‘Yes Minister’.
Highly paid pen pushers keep on coming up with their favourite projects, easily convince gullible elected members, and when these things do not work Councillors are left holding the baby. Then they lose the election and other party ends in control, to hit the same buffers. Just like we keep on passing time on this site.
Kind regards

I'm not against freedom of speech, on the contrary I put my life on the line to defend that right. What I do object to is moronic point-scoring which is based on prejudice. Be under no illusion, half of those individuals objecting to the sale of this art would not be doing so if there were a different party in charge at the Civic Centre. Where was their mock outrage when the Echo reported previous administrations failed to even bother insuring the art?
The Council's only responsibility is not just to provide services, that's very naive of you to say that. As a southampton resident I am sure they have some obligation to encourage investment into the City and to promote prosperity. Would that be done by a new museum - I think so. Look at Portsmouth, I'm sure there were many complaining when the Spinnaker went up but look at the visitors and income that has brought in.

senseofsouthampton wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

senseofsouthampton wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Lone Ranger wrote:

MrGMan wrote: İ dont mind the sale for two pieces to pay for a museum and larger art gallery. Rather that than more taxes. freemantlegirl - apparently the lottery will only pay out to 5 million which is why 5 million of donations and the art sale is needed

Shame you weren't so quick off the mark to answer my question about the about justifying of expenditure on yesterdays posts

Perhaps I should have asked the question LR, I seem to have upset him so he's following me about lol. He still hasn't convinced anyone 'why' the art sale is needed, as i said put the whole thing on hold!

Does it matter which of you asked the question? You both bore on with your political point scoring for your paymasters. As I see it... The art sale is needed to fund a project that will increase the space for art in Southampton without raising the already weighty burden on Southampton taxpayers. I note that our local MPs called on the Council to raise this burden higher - hardly surprising when they're part of the Government that has crippled this country with debt for countless generations - but that's ok in your blinkered world. Will more people or less visit Southampton if this project go ahead? Not even the most myopic political cyber warrior would argue less, no doubt you're going to try though.

Dear Sense of Southampton, Didn’t you spend your time in the armed services to protect the very freedom of expression to which you seem to be objecting? Obviously you hold different views on sale of Southampton’s inheritance than some of us. I respect your right to do so. Could you extend the same courtesy to others please and not accuse opponents of having paymasters. I don’t think anybody on this site to be like that. I can understand why you are in favour of this sale. But other side of the argument (which I support is) immorality of betraying the trust put into this council by generous donors to this collection. If their wishes are not respected it could discourage other possible public spirited people from donating items to the gallery. It would have been a different matter if these pieces were bought with tax payers money. Yes our MP Whitehead’s suggestion to borrow for Titanic museum will increase the debt burden. That is why I have opposed it and suggested not to start dreaming what City can’t afford. Also having seen plenty of pies in the sky of this council fail in the past, I am suspicious about this one as well. Basic reason for the existence of Council is to provide residents with certain core services, something for which this council is not exactly famous. I mostly know this Council (Under all three parties) to be much better and real life version of comedy ‘Yes Minister’. Highly paid pen pushers keep on coming up with their favourite projects, easily convince gullible elected members, and when these things do not work Councillors are left holding the baby. Then they lose the election and other party ends in control, to hit the same buffers. Just like we keep on passing time on this site. Kind regards

I'm not against freedom of speech, on the contrary I put my life on the line to defend that right. What I do object to is moronic point-scoring which is based on prejudice. Be under no illusion, half of those individuals objecting to the sale of this art would not be doing so if there were a different party in charge at the Civic Centre. Where was their mock outrage when the Echo reported previous administrations failed to even bother insuring the art? The Council's only responsibility is not just to provide services, that's very naive of you to say that. As a southampton resident I am sure they have some obligation to encourage investment into the City and to promote prosperity. Would that be done by a new museum - I think so. Look at Portsmouth, I'm sure there were many complaining when the Spinnaker went up but look at the visitors and income that has brought in.

You risking your life for our freedom is what I admire in you. Glad you are still committed to it.
Apart from Southy who is my fellow socialist I do not know the political affiliations of others. They could belong to any party or even may be neutral.
I can only speak for myself, and assure you that even as a Labour councillor in the past, I and many others did object to some of the silly projects leadership of that party wanted to pursue. I have often stated that Labour’s John Arnold and June Bridle have done enormous damage not only to this city but even disservice to their own Party by making the resurgence of Conservatives possible.
As I am not actively involved with any political party, the views I express are my own and held in all sincerity for what I think to be good for our city.
I am also mindful that there will always be other side of every argument and once in a while even the Tories may do something right (More than likely by accident!!!). But on Titanic I have the feeling we be lucky if it turns out to be even a one day wonder.

Freemantle girl, I wanted to be polite here and not bring something up however your inability to write anything without it dripping with bile leaves me no choice.

You clearly have no idea whatsoever.

The lottery is giving 5 million, the art sale 5 million and donations 5 million.

That equals 15 million.

Ok.

15 million.

The lottery pays 5.

Hope you have understood that now.

So if there is no art sale where does the other 5 million come from?

I repeat again, the lottery will only give 5 million.

SenseofSouthampton
It may interest you that at one time it was Labour’s commitment to create a maritime museum. It was earmarked in Ocean Village and was going to be part funded by the developers of OV.
First the pen pushers were writing reports encouraging the feasibility of that project.
But then to save developers money and to help a female member of Labour Group realise her fascination of cinema, Labour’s leadership in the Council changed their mind. Amazingly the same pen pushers then started saying what a folly the museum will be and what great success the cinema will turn out.
I was one of those who wanted to stick with the museum, because we had promised it to the people. But we lost the vote in the Group.
Now please look at the history of Harbour Light and judge for yourself what I mean by failed pies in the sky created by pen pushers. I am convinced the latest Titanic project is going to be no more success than the ship, which is now lying at the bottom of the sea. Figuers of tourist growth produced by under worked over paid fat cats should only be taken with a pinch of salt.

Miles Way wrote:

southy wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

southy wrote:

Linesman wrote:

stuartjebbitt wrote:
meanwhile... Southampton's 2nd oldest church, crumbles away for the sake of 200k. It's been there 900 years and it's grounds is buried Admiral Bullen, who fought with Nelson at Trafalgar. but heigh ho, lets just sell off our valuables to celebrate a maritime failure (caused by negligence), rather than celebrate a somewhat more successful mariner. Is Baroness Scotland a fit person to make this decision? since she couldn't even be bothered to check her own staffs paperwork? pathetic.

Why did he fight with Nelson?
Was it something he said?

yes nelson siad he was not allowed his daily ration of grog.

stuartjebbitt they are not going to worrie about famous graves. you only got to look at what they done to millbrook grave yard to know that.

whitch reminds me, those living in castle court, tonight showing on the big screen is halloween1. and tomorrow night halloween2 and 3 the following night and so forth.

Have I missed something>? is someone famous buried in Millbrook? LOL.... or about to be.. in the colloquial sense of course ;)!

there was a high number well know people buried there, the grave yard dated back well before the norman conquest and was one off the oldest in the country and there was one person that use to come over from australia to visit her mum and dad grave, it was also a s.s.i, well it was the dead centre of the village

So Millbrook graveyard is "the dead centre of the village" is it? Couldn't resist Southy.
On subject, I don't mind selling art that would otherwise be hidden from view provided money raised is wisely spent and to the benefit of Southampton people although I still can't understand the obsession with the Titanic or why it should warrant a £15 million exhibition - I'd like to add that the way the council screws up cost forecasts £15 mill is ironically just the tip of the iceberg.
Surely Soton has more worth celebrating and recognising than a 100 year old shipping disaster?

well i not going to pick over the bones on that miles.
agree on the titanic theres not enough people care about it to warrant a museum for the titanic, and the best idea is this traveling show case museum. that going to take place down by the river front, for short time span,
all art works get shown in the civic centre, some is shown in the art museum, while a bit more is shown around in there ones and twos in other places in the civic centre, it would be best to keep it all, where you can hire, lease or do an temp exchange, with other art places, once scc sales one bit then the other art centres will not want to deal with scc, whitch will be a shame because we will not get to see other works or art, that other council own. or are gallerys.
theres all ready been kick backs from other places that will not lend scc any of there art work if this sale go's ahead.

MrGMan wrote:
Freemantle girl, I wanted to be polite here and not bring something up however your inability to write anything without it dripping with bile leaves me no choice.

You clearly have no idea whatsoever.

The lottery is giving 5 million, the art sale 5 million and donations 5 million.

That equals 15 million.

Ok.

15 million.

The lottery pays 5.

Hope you have understood that now.

So if there is no art sale where does the other 5 million come from?

I repeat again, the lottery will only give 5 million.

well get one of your rich friends to put the money up on an intrest free loan.

LOL Southy, prepping for H'ween by any chance?
Glad you agree with the Titanic thing, S'oton has so much history and it is crying out for a decent museum to celebrate it's entire history, including the Mayflower, but for some reason (Hollywood's fault?) the obsession is with the single voyage of a doomed passenger liner; over here Halifax maritime museum has a display of Titanic memorabilia as a lot of the survivors/dead came here or are buried here. Quite emotive but still just a reasonably small tasteful display and only a small part of it's history.

Miles Way wrote:
LOL Southy, prepping for H'ween by any chance?
Glad you agree with the Titanic thing, S'oton has so much history and it is crying out for a decent museum to celebrate it's entire history, including the Mayflower, but for some reason (Hollywood's fault?) the obsession is with the single voyage of a doomed passenger liner; over here Halifax maritime museum has a display of Titanic memorabilia as a lot of the survivors/dead came here or are buried here. Quite emotive but still just a reasonably small tasteful display and only a small part of it's history.

is that where you are halifax, go and say hi for me to my cousins and aunt there.
the titanic was not the only ship that sailed from uk shores that sunk on its mainden voyage.
and yes your right southampton is steep in a very long history. it go's back way before the romans

southy wrote:

Miles Way wrote:
LOL Southy, prepping for H'ween by any chance?
Glad you agree with the Titanic thing, S'oton has so much history and it is crying out for a decent museum to celebrate it's entire history, including the Mayflower, but for some reason (Hollywood's fault?) the obsession is with the single voyage of a doomed passenger liner; over here Halifax maritime museum has a display of Titanic memorabilia as a lot of the survivors/dead came here or are buried here. Quite emotive but still just a reasonably small tasteful display and only a small part of it's history.

is that where you are halifax, go and say hi for me to my cousins and aunt there.
the titanic was not the only ship that sailed from uk shores that sunk on its mainden voyage.
and yes your right southampton is steep in a very long history. it go's back way before the romans

Close, about an hour away, I live near Lunenburg , home of the Bluenose, although I remain a Hampshire lad at heart!
No matter where you live, if you want to attract visitors & boost the local economy you've got to have something truly special; a Titanic museum isn't it, it's too focused on a small moment in history and as such is in danger of being more & more irrelevant as time goes by - even S'oton's claim as the home of the last survivor is gone!
Southampton could offer so much more; anyone listening? no, didn't think so.

not southampton but west of here was where she lived.
the trouble is southampton is an idustral city, and the so called powers to be is trying to make it a tourist city, and never will be. people just dont really come to southampton, they pass though it, then they might stop, but will carry on though or go round it.

Who is The Council trying to please ? We already have several monuments to The Tiatanic throughout Southampton that are just wasted on the majority of people so why do The Council feel that we need to spend out money that we simply do not have on a Titanic Museum ? The Maritime Museum was a disaster and the only time it seemed to get reasonably busy was when it was raining outside and people used to pop in to stay dry, it was rare for anyone to go and have a good look around. I am sorry but I just cannot see any logic in this at all. The only time that I can envisage a Titanic Museum ever getting visitors in enough quantity to say that it is worth anything is a one week-end in the whole year when The Titanic Society visit Southampton, the question is 'what do those people do for our City' ? They do not do much at all as my expirence tells me, most of them that visit The UK purposely are only here for one thing and that is to buy memorbilia at The Hilton Hotel near Chilworth, most of those delegates or Titanic fans do not even stay at our Hotels as they prefer to stay in Winchester or somewhere in between Southampton and Winchester, even The Southampton Maritime Museum is neglected during this period as you only ever see the odd one or two local antique dealers in there looking for a deal. I can only see that if this plan for a Titanic Museum do get the go ahead then it will turn out to be another 'white elephant'.
Just one final question that I would like to ask... who is the bosses of The City of Southampton, The Elected Council or The Council Tax Payers ?

No Mr G Man, the big question is: where are you going to get the 5 million quid in dobations from... and if you can get 5 million, why not 10 million and save the artworks from being sold. Actually though, Sea City is a terrible idea in its proposed location and should be dropped altogether (did you know the Tories will flog off the Wool House if Sea City gets built?)

swalk

then if they dont get 5 million in donations then where does the money come from?
you're answering your own questions.

Southy - young man I am not rich. I was marching against wars when you were in nappies. Don't ever dare presume I am a tory. I would rather cut off my arms than vote Conservative but I will not stand for some harpee coming on here and slagging the council off without checking her facts.

And if you're so mouthy why don't you stand for Parliament?