Unveiled: Spitfire tribute winner (From Daily Echo)

Very nice tribute, well done to all involved.

Fabulous sculpture, I hope it gets built!!

One small comment, however. The base is to show the location of the 28 factories across Southampton.

I think the structure should also list the numerous other factories across the South, (Eastleigh, Trowbridge, Salisbury, Reading etc) without whom the Spitfire would never have been made.

It looks brilliant! A fitting tribute to the Spitfire, those who built her and those who flew her.

excellent design, well done mush, love it, just hope it gets built. Maybe they could incorporate some sound effects cos the roar of the Rolls Royce Merlin engine gives me the goosepimples and brings a lump to my throat!

Just one word comes to my mind: WOW!!
(please, please, please build it!!!)

This is exactly what Southampton needs! I so hope that it gets built. It makes economic sense because it will draw the crowds and become a symbol of this city.

One Micky Channon, there's..... wrote:
excellent design, well done mush, love it, just hope it gets built. Maybe they could incorporate some sound effects cos the roar of the Rolls Royce Merlin engine gives me the goosepimples and brings a lump to my throat!

It is a wonderful sound......as long as you aren’t a budgie. I remember twenty odd years ago a Spitfire did a fly bye over the Southampton show and a load of budgies being shown there dropped dead.

Love it, need to raise some money now, I'm sure we will get it though.

Come on

Ok a design has been excepted so lets get it built before 2012.Also as a tribute all the peoples killed in its build either at Woolston or The Ford Factory (A BLD)and any other building or place connected with its construction during the war years and a tribute to all those airmen that made history with it be remembered.either in the foundation or up the sides towards the spitfire .LETS GET IT DONE FOR SOUTHAMPTON.And R.J. Mitchell

As part of the prize Mr Hancock will also be able to live a boyhood dream of going up for a flight in a real life Spitfire.


How envious am I????? Great design and I look forward to seeing it in real life.

But where did this design come from? This was not one of the short listed designs... how has this design appeared and won?

Stillness wrote:

One Micky Channon, there's..... wrote:
excellent design, well done mush, love it, just hope it gets built. Maybe they could incorporate some sound effects cos the roar of the Rolls Royce Merlin engine gives me the goosepimples and brings a lump to my throat!

It is a wonderful sound......as long as you aren’t a budgie. I remember twenty odd years ago a Spitfire did a fly bye over the Southampton show and a load of budgies being shown there dropped dead.

LOL at the poor old budgies!

But agree with all the commentators here today, it's a fantastic design and it would be brilliant if it gets built.

Pinetree wrote:
But where did this design come from? This was not one of the short listed designs... how has this design appeared and won?

Dont care. This one is far better than those shown in the short list. Maybe they made the short list a bit longer? For sure its a very short list now, a list of one.

Cracking design, and with the 2 prosposed museums the Trafalger dry dock will have the much needed re-gen it so needs! With the other re-developments going on at other parts, we will at last have a waterfront to be proud of, I so hope it gets built.

It should definitely be built so that all cruise passengers returning or departing should be able to admire this impressive design and it would be our "Statue of Liberty" for without the Spitfire we may not have won in WW11

there's a similar structure in moscow with a rocket at the top built in the 60's or. 50's it's quite stunning, this could be as well although when built although i would imagine it will not be so slender when designed . my mother worked in the woolston factory and survived the bombing in sept 1940 and is still alive

THIS IS AN UTTER DISGRACE!

No, I'm not talking of Hancock's winning design... nothing wrong with that, what I am absolutely horrified at is that Hancock was never on the final six short-listed. How cheated I do feel for Charles Rist, Martin Witts, Christopher Draper, Charles Knowles Architects, and Jon Lucas to have their hopes raised of the possibility of having their design built and the flight in the Spitfire only for the foundation to do a complete U-turn YET AGAIN. My commiserations Gentlemen, despite my critique on your designs and the honour that two of you came onto the Daily Echo website to discuss your designs further, I would have NEVER EVER have wished this utter shambolic, shameful and disgraceful act to happen to any of you.

This just shows yet again the utter incompetency and crooked ways of those that call themselves the Spitfire Tribute Foundation. And the utterly false and flawed claims of the Open competition. This is an absolute fiddle. Hancock was not one of the original six finalists. He should not have then won this open competition.

I am so fuming at this I can't bare to write much more right now, but I will be back to spit more fire... SHAME ON YOU Spitfire tribute Foundation. You're not fit to say that you pride yourself on doing right by making a Spitfire tribute. Scrap Ken Potts, try an open competition, chose the final six, ditch them, chose another designed by one with more notoriety. Utterly Scandalous. What would RJ make of it all? He'd be turning in his grave at such misgivings I feel.

very nice design, but i thought the competition was totally open to the pubic? Hancock is a Professional, and he was not even in the short list? what is going on? I smell a rat with this one.....

Statue of Liberty - Nelsons Column - Angel of the North. Come off it !

The Spitfire was designed by a Northerner, and it's maiden flight was from Eastleigh aerodrome.
It was built all over the place, mainly in the Midlands, and never flew from Eastleigh operationally.

Not much of a connection with Southampton actually, apart from the Echo 'design a monument ' competition.

What a pity that it is taking three quarters of a century to commemorate the spitfire.

Better late than never I suppose.

SpittingFire wrote:
THIS IS AN UTTER DISGRACE!

No, I'm not talking of Hancock's winning design... nothing wrong with that, what I am absolutely horrified at is that Hancock was never on the final six short-listed. How cheated I do feel for Charles Rist, Martin Witts, Christopher Draper, Charles Knowles Architects, and Jon Lucas to have their hopes raised of the possibility of having their design built and the flight in the Spitfire only for the foundation to do a complete U-turn YET AGAIN. My commiserations Gentlemen, despite my critique on your designs and the honour that two of you came onto the Daily Echo website to discuss your designs further, I would have NEVER EVER have wished this utter shambolic, shameful and disgraceful act to happen to any of you.

This just shows yet again the utter incompetency and crooked ways of those that call themselves the Spitfire Tribute Foundation. And the utterly false and flawed claims of the Open competition. This is an absolute fiddle. Hancock was not one of the original six finalists. He should not have then won this open competition.

I am so fuming at this I can't bare to write much more right now, but I will be back to spit more fire... SHAME ON YOU Spitfire tribute Foundation. You're not fit to say that you pride yourself on doing right by making a Spitfire tribute. Scrap Ken Potts, try an open competition, chose the final six, ditch them, chose another designed by one with more notoriety. Utterly Scandalous. What would RJ make of it all? He'd be turning in his grave at such misgivings I feel.

.. guessed you'd be back.
boring, boring, boring.

freefinker wrote:

SpittingFire wrote:
THIS IS AN UTTER DISGRACE!

No, I'm not talking of Hancock's winning design... nothing wrong with that, what I am absolutely horrified at is that Hancock was never on the final six short-listed. How cheated I do feel for Charles Rist, Martin Witts, Christopher Draper, Charles Knowles Architects, and Jon Lucas to have their hopes raised of the possibility of having their design built and the flight in the Spitfire only for the foundation to do a complete U-turn YET AGAIN. My commiserations Gentlemen, despite my critique on your designs and the honour that two of you came onto the Daily Echo website to discuss your designs further, I would have NEVER EVER have wished this utter shambolic, shameful and disgraceful act to happen to any of you.

This just shows yet again the utter incompetency and crooked ways of those that call themselves the Spitfire Tribute Foundation. And the utterly false and flawed claims of the Open competition. This is an absolute fiddle. Hancock was not one of the original six finalists. He should not have then won this open competition.

I am so fuming at this I can't bare to write much more right now, but I will be back to spit more fire... SHAME ON YOU Spitfire tribute Foundation. You're not fit to say that you pride yourself on doing right by making a Spitfire tribute. Scrap Ken Potts, try an open competition, chose the final six, ditch them, chose another designed by one with more notoriety. Utterly Scandalous. What would RJ make of it all? He'd be turning in his grave at such misgivings I feel.

.. guessed you'd be back.
boring, boring, boring.

Of course, a true Spitfire tribute means a alot to me! But I had never expected this to happen, and with no explanation to the u-turn either...

FATTank wrote:
very nice design, but i thought the competition was totally open to the pubic? Hancock is a Professional, and he was not even in the short list? what is going on? I smell a rat with this one.....

I can smell it too! and it don't half stink bad!

gristle wrote:
Statue of Liberty - Nelsons Column - Angel of the North. Come off it !

The Spitfire was designed by a Northerner, and it's maiden flight was from Eastleigh aerodrome.
It was built all over the place, mainly in the Midlands, and never flew from Eastleigh operationally.

Not much of a connection with Southampton actually, apart from the Echo 'design a monument ' competition.

That’s all a bit snide isn’t it?

The reason Eastleigh aerodrome was renamed Southampton/Eastleig
h is because it is clearly situated on the boarder (as anyone who lives in Mansbridge will tell you.

As for Mitchell being “a Northerner” – The fact that he is buried in the in the local church points to more than a passing association with the city.

Can I guess that one of those from Pompey that live in Eastleigh, probably something to do with the railway, and have a massive chip on your shoulder.

You probably argue that the Titanic’s maiden voyage was actually from Belfast and That the Pilgrim fathers were actually from Lancashire

To put it plainly, it is easy to pick holes in peoples attempts to do things, than actually do things. Don’t be so negative

gristle wrote:
Statue of Liberty - Nelsons Column - Angel of the North. Come off it !

The Spitfire was designed by a Northerner, and it's maiden flight was from Eastleigh aerodrome.
It was built all over the place, mainly in the Midlands, and never flew from Eastleigh operationally.

Not much of a connection with Southampton actually, apart from the Echo 'design a monument ' competition.

Why is there this hopeless city monument/statue rivalry that seems to be boasted throughout the Echo reports, which seems to be one of the main concerns according to Matt Smith's online and in-paper report out today. Just look how we've first been introduced to the winning design, "It will be Southampton's answer to the Statue of Liberty " - please! I've certainly not been looking for an answer from Southampton in response to New York.

This is why we have such comments from gristle. This should be in no way the focus of what this monument is supposed to be about. You simply cannot draw comparisons to rival one another. It's their individual meaning and significance that has made these pieces iconic, in their own right.

Without such shallow visionary boasting perhaps gristle would have learnt more of the significance of the Spitfire's connection with the City. And you consequently implanting in gristle knowledge of what this potential monument's significance and meaning might be, so it then becoming in gristle's blurry eyes, no longer a comparative to Nelson's Column, the Statue of Liberty, or Angel of the North but rather an iconic piece significant to it's location, in it's own right.

Mr. Smith, at least you've not gone the whole hog as you've skipped the Spinnaker into your analysis (maybe you are saving this for a later report). BUT I must beg of you, why on earth have you not had the courage to question the obvious fact in your write-up that when you state that the winner was taken from the short-listed entries, that in fact Hancock was not one of the final six? Why not question Hannides on this on that when you interviewed him? Why have you not sought an explanation from the Foundation to be published in addition? I simply cannot believe that you could so easily gloss over this issue. You have reported on this very badly. And in doing so have further sullied the competency of the Foundation in their so called honest intentions of building a Spitfire tribute. Bad Job Smith. And I know your Boss is on the Foundation, but that is no excuse. Shame on you also.

SpittingFire wrote:

gristle wrote:
Statue of Liberty - Nelsons Column - Angel of the North. Come off it !

The Spitfire was designed by a Northerner, and it's maiden flight was from Eastleigh aerodrome.
It was built all over the place, mainly in the Midlands, and never flew from Eastleigh operationally.

Not much of a connection with Southampton actually, apart from the Echo 'design a monument ' competition.

Why is there this hopeless city monument/statue rivalry that seems to be boasted throughout the Echo reports, which seems to be one of the main concerns according to Matt Smith's online and in-paper report out today. Just look how we've first been introduced to the winning design, "It will be Southampton's answer to the Statue of Liberty " - please! I've certainly not been looking for an answer from Southampton in response to New York.

This is why we have such comments from gristle. This should be in no way the focus of what this monument is supposed to be about. You simply cannot draw comparisons to rival one another. It's their individual meaning and significance that has made these pieces iconic, in their own right.

Without such shallow visionary boasting perhaps gristle would have learnt more of the significance of the Spitfire's connection with the City. And you consequently implanting in gristle knowledge of what this potential monument's significance and meaning might be, so it then becoming in gristle's blurry eyes, no longer a comparative to Nelson's Column, the Statue of Liberty, or Angel of the North but rather an iconic piece significant to it's location, in it's own right.

Mr. Smith, at least you've not gone the whole hog as you've skipped the Spinnaker into your analysis (maybe you are saving this for a later report). BUT I must beg of you, why on earth have you not had the courage to question the obvious fact in your write-up that when you state that the winner was taken from the short-listed entries, that in fact Hancock was not one of the final six? Why not question Hannides on this on that when you interviewed him? Why have you not sought an explanation from the Foundation to be published in addition? I simply cannot believe that you could so easily gloss over this issue. You have reported on this very badly. And in doing so have further sullied the competency of the Foundation in their so called honest intentions of building a Spitfire tribute. Bad Job Smith. And I know your Boss is on the Foundation, but that is no excuse. Shame on you also.

And that's just be beginning of my critique on this latest news, I've not even started yet.

EDF Energy London and South of England Print Journalist of the the Year 2009? Hmmm....

gristle wrote:
Statue of Liberty - Nelsons Column - Angel of the North. Come off it ! The Spitfire was designed by a Northerner, and it's maiden flight was from Eastleigh aerodrome. It was built all over the place, mainly in the Midlands, and never flew from Eastleigh operationally. Not much of a connection with Southampton actually, apart from the Echo 'design a monument ' competition.

What a load of tosh. It was designed locally, the prototype was built locally, it first flew from Southampton and the first few hundred were built in Woolston. "Not much of a connection" You a skater or what? It's coming home.

Pick and Mix Spitfire "steals" the day.
A seventh "sortlisted" entry wins.....
I smell a rat too!
It appears we have been misled,
how disheartening!
One of the original six.

As one of the final six, Im extremely disappointed that we seem to have been scammed !!!!! I think the design is great but that is irrelevant !!!!!!!!!! Im sooo angry I cant explain the amount of work all six put into this competition only to be cheated. What those who were not in the final six wont know is that we were all asked to prepare a second package of information explaining our concepts in detail. Im sure we all spent a huge amount of time and energy getting it together and for what ????

Hancocks design wasn't part of the competition and is almost exactly the same as the Colin lee design from back in 2007 . ?? There are so many questions and this has really left a sour taste in my mouth

Im VERY disappointed. Im going to be writing to Liz Smith Art & Public Realm Project Officer Southampton City Council who was our contact through the later stages of the competition to try and get answers !!! I think we are owed an explanation

chris draper

I have written to Elizabeth Smith

"Dear Elizabeth

I have just seen the winning design ???? It wasn't part of the six shortlisted designs ??? I have to say at the moment I am extremely confused and disappointed with this result. Reading the comments on the Southern Daily echo website I can see many others are equally confused and angry.

I think Hancock's design is great however that is irrelevant surely !!!! I'm also confused by his site as it doesn't seem to be the same as those outlined to us in the brief ? I can also see several aspects of other shortlisted designs in his. Further to that his design is very similar to the design by Colin Lee from 2007 ? I'm sure that whoever was deemed runner up will be furious at being denied the rightful status of winner and the flight in the spitfire.

I dont understand why we were asked to provide the additional material if another design had been brought in ?? Im sure we all took the opportunity to explain our concepts very seriously and therefore committed every possible moment to putting the package together.

I hope you can understand my anger at this moment. This has left a very sour taste in my mouth and no doubt in the other finalists. I think this is an extremely unprofessional way to run such an important competition as this.

I hope to hear from you soon with some kind of explanation.

Regards

chris"

Hi Charles

When I first saw it I thought it was your design. I will contact you via your website

This is a disgrace

chris draper

I'm absolutely shocked at this outcome, the amount of work that the final 6 put in is completely disregarded to make space for a phantom new design which looks like a collection of other peoples work.

I agree with everything that spittingfire, Chris Draper and Charles Rist have said.

- another one of the original six

tigga5

can you contact me

cdraperillustration@
hotmail.com

chris

I wonder if the final six have fallen to some issue with the small print? I take it ToC were read and understood? Many big competitions like that often have a get out clause in case there are financial or structural issues.

such cheerful stuff to attract the masses , a killing machine and a doomed ocean liner , three week wonder.

Disgrace is an understatement. This under-hand dealing utterly flies in the face of the spirit of this competition. I'm feeling pretty stupid right now.

Hancock is quoted as saying he's "over the moon". Well with an immaculate conception such as this I dare say he is.

I'll be gathering my thoughts over this one but in the meantime you may be interested in this forum thread: http://www.dpchallen
ge.com/forum.php?act
ion=read&FORUM_THREA
D_ID=1022803

If anyone wants to play spot the difference with mine and other entries, then feel free.

JonLucas wrote:
Disgrace is an understatement. This under-hand dealing utterly flies in the face of the spirit of this competition. I'm feeling pretty stupid right now.

Hancock is quoted as saying he's "over the moon". Well with an immaculate conception such as this I dare say he is.

I'll be gathering my thoughts over this one but in the meantime you may be interested in this forum thread: http://www.dpchallen

ge.com/forum.php?act

ion=read&FORUM_T
HREA
D_ID=1022803

If anyone wants to play spot the difference with mine and other entries, then feel free.

Jon, I've just come back to check the latest here and seeing your comment first I can say that I am delighted that you and come back and aired your views on this. Charles Rist, welcome also I'm delighted to see you're here also to rise up against this utter utter disgrace, yes Jon as you say that too is an understatement. Some-one also mentioned a "pick and mix Spitfire"... This is undoubtedly something I was going to go on to, Hancock's is so similar to Rist with contrasting proportions, and they've taken Jon's detail around the bottom of the engravings (Jon's idea of Photographs) to tie the monument to connections with Southampton... it is quite unbelievable! In what I can see in Hancocks original design submitted, there is no such detail around the bottom. Plus add to the fact that to release the winning design the Foundation have yet again copied Jon's stunning presentation in adding the sunset filled Photographic sky and the rest of the visionary scene which looks nothing like the current location to sell it to the public, is deplorable.

downfader wrote:
I wonder if the final six have fallen to some issue with the small print? I take it ToC were read and understood? Many big competitions like that often have a get out clause in case there are financial or structural issues.

I could not find any concrete t&c's, on this competition anywhere. The Foundation did not publish any. The Sunday Telegraph were the ones who best promoted the competition with conditions to entering published there: (http://www.telegrap
h.co.uk/news/newstop
ics/world-war-2/batt
le-of-britain/789629
7/Competition-launch
ed-to-design-nationa
l-memorial-for-the-S
pitfire.html) Besides, when the public can obviously see that there are such underhand tactics going on, and when it's meant to be the public's monument anyway they really should have known better than to do this. It's clear that the shortlisted entrants were not even contacted of this change either. So much of this is morally wrong. Bad publicity. No explanation. No apology. Utterly deplorable. I can't bare to think of the Spitfire being associated with this mess. Disgraceful.

If this design is streets ahead of the other 6 then tough.

The city needs a showstopper.

- if the competition organisers are incompetent than that will come as no surprise especially if councillors have been involved

chrisdraper wrote:
As one of the final six, Im extremely disappointed that we seem to have been scammed !!!!! I think the design is great but that is irrelevant !!!!!!!!!! Im sooo angry I cant explain the amount of work all six put into this competition only to be cheated. What those who were not in the final six wont know is that we were all asked to prepare a second package of information explaining our concepts in detail. Im sure we all spent a huge amount of time and energy getting it together and for what ????

Hancocks design wasn't part of the competition and is almost exactly the same as the Colin lee design from back in 2007 . ?? There are so many questions and this has really left a sour taste in my mouth

Im VERY disappointed. Im going to be writing to Liz Smith Art & Public Realm Project Officer Southampton City Council who was our contact through the later stages of the competition to try and get answers !!! I think we are owed an explanation

chris draper

QUOTE:"What those who were not in the final six wont know is that we were all asked to prepare a second package of information explaining our concepts in detail"


Chris I'm am utterly even more horrified at reading this. That the 6 of you had to submit further details, took the time and trouble to do this... for this result to happen... I am so MAD. Something drastic needs to be done to rectify this. Heads need to roll. If you can Gentlemen could publish your further details package somewhere so that the public can see just how much of what each of you have proposed, and how much of that has come together in this design which I do speculate is what has happened I would be grateful to see. I'm still waiting to view the 31 page brochure that the Echo said in its paper would be published online yesterday. I can't tell you how angry I am with this new information that has come to light.

The fact that Liz Smith of our Council has been involved with this and has been your first point of call, this comes down badly on Southampton City Council too. Disgraceful.

SpittingFire wrote:

downfader wrote: I wonder if the final six have fallen to some issue with the small print? I take it ToC were read and understood? Many big competitions like that often have a get out clause in case there are financial or structural issues.

I could not find any concrete t&c's, on this competition anywhere. The Foundation did not publish any. The Sunday Telegraph were the ones who best promoted the competition with conditions to entering published there: (http://www.telegrap h.co.uk/news/newstop ics/world-war-2/batt le-of-britain/789629 7/Competition-launch ed-to-design-nationa l-memorial-for-the-S pitfire.html) Besides, when the public can obviously see that there are such underhand tactics going on, and when it's meant to be the public's monument anyway they really should have known better than to do this. It's clear that the shortlisted entrants were not even contacted of this change either. So much of this is morally wrong. Bad publicity. No explanation. No apology. Utterly deplorable. I can't bare to think of the Spitfire being associated with this mess. Disgraceful.

I find it odd that there were none online, unless they distributed them in paper form. I suppose they could have removed the links later by mistake?
.
I used to enter a lot of photo competitions and the small print got interesting at times (with a few firms trying to grab copyrights and things) so I got used to reading them.
.
I'd also point out that the majority of the public wont be reading this. The entrants need to contact the press directly and air their grievances there. They do need to make sure they have a watertight case, however.

downfader wrote:

SpittingFire wrote:

downfader wrote: I wonder if the final six have fallen to some issue with the small print? I take it ToC were read and understood? Many big competitions like that often have a get out clause in case there are financial or structural issues.

I could not find any concrete t&c's, on this competition anywhere. The Foundation did not publish any. The Sunday Telegraph were the ones who best promoted the competition with conditions to entering published there: (http://www.telegrap h.co.uk/news/newstop ics/world-war-2/batt le-of-britain/789629 7/Competition-launch ed-to-design-nationa l-memorial-for-the-S pitfire.html) Besides, when the public can obviously see that there are such underhand tactics going on, and when it's meant to be the public's monument anyway they really should have known better than to do this. It's clear that the shortlisted entrants were not even contacted of this change either. So much of this is morally wrong. Bad publicity. No explanation. No apology. Utterly deplorable. I can't bare to think of the Spitfire being associated with this mess. Disgraceful.

I find it odd that there were none online, unless they distributed them in paper form. I suppose they could have removed the links later by mistake?
.
I used to enter a lot of photo competitions and the small print got interesting at times (with a few firms trying to grab copyrights and things) so I got used to reading them.
.
I'd also point out that the majority of the public wont be reading this. The entrants need to contact the press directly and air their grievances there. They do need to make sure they have a watertight case, however.

Don't worry this is just the start. This has been the first wave of feedback since the story broke yesterday so those that are interested in the public reaction, i.e the Tribute Foundation and the Daily Echo will certainly be reading this.
.
Speaking of the Echo and Ian Murry the Editor and member of the Foundation, despite the flaccid reporting I noted earlier from Mr. Smith in braking this story, I feel that the Echo has done a satisfactory job to represent and promote the feedback and the views of the public, as well as spearheading the the Campaign. For example just earlier this week Wed Nov 3rd, JC Martin's letter was featured on the Your Views page of the paper (Soapbox feature) with objections to the location of the design, bloating the aircraft from its original size, etc. So Mr. Murry has done well in his approach to gage the views of all and have influence to this end within the Foundation. I would press him further that he continues more vehemently as the representative of the people of this City on the board.
.
It was objections from the public gathered through the Echo that lead to the scrapping of Ken Potts first proposal, the final design which was claimed would be built. And I'm pleased to see that we've also been given a poll on this page regarding the design, “wrong location”, “I don't like it” etc. Although this is not balanced enough, I applaud the Echo for trying. Even down to be able to give free speech online in response to this report and to highlight the injustice being done this weekend.
.
I've no doubt that the finalists will be first approaching their own local press to highlight this issue right now, as I've seen the local press of entrants pick this up during and after the competition and as the ball rolls on a more national level the decision of the Foundation and the Council's involvement actually makes Southampton look bad by association.

I've just seen the Chairman of the Foundation Councillor Hanndies on a recording that has just aired tonight 10.15pm on BBC South Today, talking about the winning design. His manner, apprehension, and lack of enthusiasm speaks for itself. You look worried Hannides... very worried indeed. What is troubling you I wonder Sir?

chrisdraper wrote:
As one of the final six, Im extremely disappointed that we seem to have been scammed !!!!! I think the design is great but that is irrelevant !!!!!!!!!! Im sooo angry I cant explain the amount of work all six put into this competition only to be cheated. What those who were not in the final six wont know is that we were all asked to prepare a second package of information explaining our concepts in detail. Im sure we all spent a huge amount of time and energy getting it together and for what ????

Hancocks design wasn't part of the competition and is almost exactly the same as the Colin lee design from back in 2007 . ?? There are so many questions and this has really left a sour taste in my mouth

Im VERY disappointed. Im going to be writing to Liz Smith Art & Public Realm Project Officer Southampton City Council who was our contact through the later stages of the competition to try and get answers !!! I think we are owed an explanation

chris draper

For anyone that wishes to view Colin Lee design featured in the Echo from 2007 where the similarities are uncanny, luckily someone made a pdf of it and posted it online. http://www.shhas.co.
uk/SHHAS%20MISC/shha
s%20docs/EC_20071221
_MAIN_TAC_010.pdf
.
Hancock's is practically exactly the same as Lee's with the ideas of the other finalists thrown in, as Charles Rist so eloquently put it "his design is a calculated modification of mine and the other entries"

Poor Colin Lee too - remarkable similarity. This really is an amazing miscarriage of justice.

A deplorable shambles!

THIS JUST GETS WORSE AND WORSE! I have since discovered how the Telegraph have reported the winner yesterday. http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/newstopi
cs/world-war-2/battl
e-of-britain/8114453
/Winning-design-chos
en-for-national-Spit
fire-memorial.html
.
And another shocking revelation is from that article is this: "The competition's runner-up was James Burnell, 64, an artist from Bournemouth, Dorset, who submitted a design made from composite materials, such as glass fibre and resin, supported on a steel column. "
.
ANOTHER HORRIFYING SCANDALOUS REVELATION!
.
Absolutely by rights Burnell should be the winner of this competition, Hancock as the winner should be disqualified. Burnell was one of the final six, whereas Hancock never was. Where did Hancock come from? Why is it that he has subsequently come to be judged the winner when the foundation didn't even shortlist him? To suddenly choose his design over the one by Charles Rist, which has previously been discussed above as being similar to our current winner, Then if they wanted that look and design then by rights they should have then chosen Rist.
.
This absolutely, and resolutely concurs the deplorable, underhand and scandalous methodology of this result by the Foundation. I cannot understand this result, other than to say there has most certainly been foul play.

AN EYE-OPENER READ ON:
.
Here also I've found some of the content of Hancock's website, detailing more toward this winning Spitfire design...
.

"The organisers called for a structure that would pay tribute to RJ Mitchell, the aviation genius who designed the Spitfire. It’s not often that you get to design something honouring another designer, and that’s what the project became for us.... We also discovered that Southampton and the Spitfire were intricately linked... We’ve been lucky enough to work with some pretty ingenious people ourselves on this project: Fergus McCormick of Buro Happold (Buro Happold defined and developed the structural solution and Bruce Patterson of Quantem has meticulously worked through both the program and costs. We would also like to thank Jacek Grabowski for the wonderful render."
.
"This project"...
.
Now can the real finalist's entries have also received the additional structural design and costing plan help Nick Hancock's lot have received from the consultancies of Buro Happold and Quantem? Have these lot been appointed by the Foundation? Can the public, or at least the six finalists be able to see the costing and structural details of their own designs aswell please Tribute Foundation? Or has Nick knocked on the consultancies doors and got the costing work done beforehand and entered all that into his competition entry in those 3 weeks of the Competition? But hold on... "We’ve been lucky enough"; so that sounds like in Hancock's day to day work he has not been so lucky enough to have access to work alongside such consultancies himself.
.
I could speculate that Fergus McCormick (the Echo's referral to the London Eye and London 2012) having worked on Johannesburg Athletics Stadium, South Africa and Nick Hancock having done about the only biggest thing in his portfolio, Philippi Grandstand, South Africa; of which were consultations for another design agency. Work on these South African stadiums for the FIFA Games 2010 loosely links these two individuals together. Everything else in Hancock's online portfolio are mainly proposals, designs for other competitions. So here we can possibly see an individual with the contacts and abilities to completely take the costing work out of the Foundation's hands, and what with Mr McCormick's NOTORIETY.... well, you could argue in their eyes this makes Hancock a real winner after all!

If only they had got Hancock on the original short-list, none would be the wiser to all this and they would have got away with it.
.

And unlike the other finalists of this competition who have had a marvellous passion for Spitfire (see other comments in the shortlist unveiling)... Hancock sounds less aware of its connection with Southampton from the start of his designing. Furthermore, "It’s not often that you get to design something honouring another designer, that's what the project became for us" so according to this, there has been less priority with the actual Spitfire and it's heritage, the Battle of Britain, and the Southampton connection then has it? Quite a contrast to the Daily Echo and Telegraph reports.

Never in the field of Human Conflict was so much Owed by so Many To so Few.

Ought to be on there somewhere! Perhaps on the wings?

Saint Bean wrote:
Never in the field of Human Conflict was so much Owed by so Many To so Few.

Ought to be on there somewhere! Perhaps on the wings?

Well Saint bean, speaking of additions! That for a designer of this winning entry who displays in his very own words the little prior knowledge of the Spitfire's connections with Southampton, to have worked in such intricate details as the engraving of the map of 28 factories, workshops and garages dotted around Southampton into his design sounds quite incredible! Doctored and suspicious.
.
And still nothing is being said of the 100 odd workers that died in that Supermarine bombing... where is the tribute to them in all this?!

As Chairman of the Foundation perhaps Mr Hannides may wish to make an open statement on the above comments.
.
Mind you.... local councillor........ Dont hold your breath.
.

FATTank wrote:
very nice design, but i thought the competition was totally open to the pubic? Hancock is a Professional, and he was not even in the short list? what is going on? I smell a rat with this one.....

Long live the conspirators!! Excelling in complaining oh how easy that is! Probably don't have any creative bones in their body. Get over it. A great design, brilliant idea, it will be a fantastic addition to the area. Get on the team and support this wonderful piece of architecture - Well done Mr Hancock - don't let them get you down - some people just live to complain - what a boring life!

Winners wrote:

FATTank wrote:
very nice design, but i thought the competition was totally open to the pubic? Hancock is a Professional, and he was not even in the short list? what is going on? I smell a rat with this one.....

Long live the conspirators!! Excelling in complaining oh how easy that is! Probably don't have any creative bones in their body. Get over it. A great design, brilliant idea, it will be a fantastic addition to the area. Get on the team and support this wonderful piece of architecture - Well done Mr Hancock - don't let them get you down - some people just live to complain - what a boring life!

Well many of them think they actually have justifible complaints. Nothing against the person's design that has been chosen, but if you run a competition and then chose another random design that wasn't in the final six then questions DO have to be asked! I would be furious too if I was one of the top six. As LR says a comment from Hanides as to what is going on needs to be sought. Echo, your next story me thinks...

Greetings from Dominica... 4,500 miles away!

Like everyone else, I am disappointed that The Spitfire Trust gained publicity and money by creating an open competition and then declaring the 'winner' to be someone who hadn't even reached the Last Six.

Looking at the 'winning' design, it does seem to contain features of the Last Six original designs.

I feel, at the very least, that The Committee owes the Public and the Last Six an explanation...

Failing that, I suggest they resign.

I was so excited when I read the piece. Finally Southampton would have an art work to be proud of. Then I began reading the comments and thought...'Wow, there's no one on here bleating on about how the money could be better spent' etc etc. Support for public art in Southampton?....sure
ly not.
And then the story unfolds. Can this city of ours do anything right at all? Another shameful exhibition of just how not to go about things.
The city is a joke. And it all stems from the far from civically minded ego maniacs within the Council going back to the early days of post WWII.
Shame on you

Reading some of these comments screams nothing short of sour grapes. I am amazed at the bitterness shared publicly by those who want nothing more than self promotion when things didn't quite go their way or as expected. There is honour in defeat and the organaising committee made a decision, so respect it and display some dignity.

The winner in all of this is Southampton. Stop driving your own vicious agendas full of conspiracy theories and suspicion. Your behaviour and comments reflects who you really are for the world to see...and what I am seeing is disgraceful reflection of very small minded people who have an axe to grind. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Imagine how Mr. Hancock must feel reading your rants and tirades? His design was chosen. End of story. Move on.

Well done to all involved from this project's start to its completion. Its a stunning design that showcases our city to all who visit. Stop looking for a political angle to justify your disappointment.

Colin Lee, if you are reading this, please give your opinion or contact one of the SIX short listed finalists....

As one of the ORIGINAL SIX finalists I think it is important to say that we await clarification from the organizers regarding their decision. At that point we will decide on our next action.

lonham12 wrote:
Reading some of these comments screams nothing short of sour grapes. I am amazed at the bitterness shared publicly by those who want nothing more than self promotion when things didn't quite go their way or as expected. There is honour in defeat and the organaising committee made a decision, so respect it and display some dignity.

The winner in all of this is Southampton. Stop driving your own vicious agendas full of conspiracy theories and suspicion. Your behaviour and comments reflects who you really are for the world to see...and what I am seeing is disgraceful reflection of very small minded people who have an axe to grind. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Imagine how Mr. Hancock must feel reading your rants and tirades? His design was chosen. End of story. Move on.

Well done to all involved from this project's start to its completion. Its a stunning design that showcases our city to all who visit. Stop looking for a political angle to justify your disappointment.

so you're happy for the competition to be seen as a joke, the city to be seen as a joke and whomever is running this scam to be allowed to continue to determine our city's future? Oh, and for a latecomer to come in and totally plagiarise earlier entries.
OK fair enough

BrixtonSaint wrote:

lonham12 wrote:
Reading some of these comments screams nothing short of sour grapes. I am amazed at the bitterness shared publicly by those who want nothing more than self promotion when things didn't quite go their way or as expected. There is honour in defeat and the organaising committee made a decision, so respect it and display some dignity.

The winner in all of this is Southampton. Stop driving your own vicious agendas full of conspiracy theories and suspicion. Your behaviour and comments reflects who you really are for the world to see...and what I am seeing is disgraceful reflection of very small minded people who have an axe to grind. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Imagine how Mr. Hancock must feel reading your rants and tirades? His design was chosen. End of story. Move on.

Well done to all involved from this project's start to its completion. Its a stunning design that showcases our city to all who visit. Stop looking for a political angle to justify your disappointment.

so you're happy for the competition to be seen as a joke, the city to be seen as a joke and whomever is running this scam to be allowed to continue to determine our city's future? Oh, and for a latecomer to come in and totally plagiarise earlier entries.
OK fair enough

Thanks for proving my point. Ignorance must be bliss. I'd be very careful using the word 'plagiarise' to justify your perspective on the winning design. Its an easy out for someone clutching at straws to elevate their personal position. Ditto for the use of sarcasm...

Thanks for proving my point. Ignorance must be bliss. I'd be very careful using the word 'plagiarise' to justify your perspective on the winning design. Its an easy out for someone clutching at straws to elevate their personal position. Ditto for the use of sarcasm...

There are two questions: Did the 'winner' have the opportunity of seeing the designs that had been selected as the Six Finalists before he submitted his design?

And

Why did the Spitfire Trust promote an open contest and then decide to nominate a winner who they hadn't even selected as being one of the Six Finalists?

In the absence of any explanation from the organisers, it does seem to tarnish the integrity of The Committee...

lonham12 wrote:
Thanks for proving my point. Ignorance must be bliss. I'd be very careful using the word 'plagiarise' to justify your perspective on the winning design. Its an easy out for someone clutching at straws to elevate their personal position. Ditto for the use of sarcasm...

If by personal position you mean I was one of the submitters to the competition or linked to one, or even had a preference for one, then I'm sorry, that's not me. If you look at my original post you'll see how excited I was with the prospect of the piece coming to Southampton. There are no 'sour grapes' on my part, just complete bafflement as to how yet again, Southampton can never do anything right.
I would be VERY interested to know when Mr Hancock got to know about the project. If it was beyond the point at which the shortlist was drawn up, then I feel there are questions that need to be answered.
My only agenda is to see our city as a beacon for visitors and cultural heritage on the south coast. Something it has failed to grasp time and time again.
As regards to ignorance, probably. In fact yes, I'm ignorant of the fact that a competition like this could be scammed in such a manner.

lonham12 wrote:
Reading some of these comments screams nothing short of sour grapes. I am amazed at the bitterness shared publicly by those who want nothing more than self promotion when things didn't quite go their way or as expected. There is honour in defeat and the organaising committee made a decision, so respect it and display some dignity.

The winner in all of this is Southampton. Stop driving your own vicious agendas full of conspiracy theories and suspicion. Your behaviour and comments reflects who you really are for the world to see...and what I am seeing is disgraceful reflection of very small minded people who have an axe to grind. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Imagine how Mr. Hancock must feel reading your rants and tirades? His design was chosen. End of story. Move on.

Well done to all involved from this project's start to its completion. Its a stunning design that showcases our city to all who visit. Stop looking for a political angle to justify your disappointment.

"Sour grapes"

I agree with you.

(The design is superb. Stunning. Breathtakingly beautiful. If built, it will be an apt and worthy landmark for the city, and help put Southampton on the map, whilst honouring all those who merit being honoured and remembered. Build it and the admirers will come from far and wide!)

If the competition was rigged in some way, then of course the losing entrants justifiably can be miffed or even downright angry and feel cheated.

They can seek a resolution to their feelings of having been conned, by going direct to the source - the competition organiser, (maybe accompanied by a lawyer?) and seek redress that way.

Publicly airing their grievance on this forum may not be their best strategy to achieve what they want to achieve?

Plus, they risk being perceived as spouting "sour grapes" by the tone of their contributions ,which tend towards being hysterical, pompous, histrionic and emotional to the point they lose their argument?

After all, we all know that perception is reality :-)

An intreresting story in The Daily Mail onlne ....

Riddle of missing Spitfire ace shot down after D-Day is solved after being found in Normandy estuary.

BrixtonSaint wrote:

lonham12 wrote:
Thanks for proving my point. Ignorance must be bliss. I'd be very careful using the word 'plagiarise' to justify your perspective on the winning design. Its an easy out for someone clutching at straws to elevate their personal position. Ditto for the use of sarcasm...

If by personal position you mean I was one of the submitters to the competition or linked to one, or even had a preference for one, then I'm sorry, that's not me. If you look at my original post you'll see how excited I was with the prospect of the piece coming to Southampton. There are no 'sour grapes' on my part, just complete bafflement as to how yet again, Southampton can never do anything right.
I would be VERY interested to know when Mr Hancock got to know about the project. If it was beyond the point at which the shortlist was drawn up, then I feel there are questions that need to be answered.
My only agenda is to see our city as a beacon for visitors and cultural heritage on the south coast. Something it has failed to grasp time and time again.
As regards to ignorance, probably. In fact yes, I'm ignorant of the fact that a competition like this could be scammed in such a manner.

And what if you discovered from the committee that Mr. Hancock had in fact submitted his entry prior to the shortlist being drawn up? A point that everyone appears to have overlooked when casting dispersions of cheating and plagiarism at Mr. Hancock and at the committee choosing his design.
Where is your argument then along with others on this comment list should this be proven otherwise?
The committee obviously changed their mind for whatever reason WHICH is their prerogative to do so. Do you really think that in this day and age with accountability and freedom of information that the decision about a public monument would be 'cloak and dagger'? Be real. Its a monument not a multi-million pound business deal lining someone's personal pocket through outright corruption.
A competition scam? Please! The competition was to get a range of entries on the table. That's it. The 6 published finalists were revisited in the decision making process for whatever reason and a different agreement was reached by the collective. Give the committee some credit for doing their job and making a final decision. They made a choice irrespective of what others believed were in the competition boundaries. Hence, my reference to sour grapes.
If you believe your agenda is truly for bettering this city as a beacon then you are contradicting yourself. This monument is not a failure in representing Southampton to visitors. Let alone our heritage and the role of the Spitfire. To impede its creation through all of this nonsense of conspiracy and assumption is.
I wonder how many people will eat their words and apologise to Mr. Hancock and the committee once all is 'revealed' should it be discovered that no wrong was done? I doubt that anybody on here that have taken the pessimist or conspiracy approach route would. It amazes me how quickly everyone is prepared to go off on a tangent without either knowing the facts or bothering to ask the source. I feel sorry for all involved should this witch hunt be unfounded, especially Mr. Hancock - a creative designer who gave it a go, was chosen successfully, only to have his shining moment tarnished by a select few with an 'agenda' to follow.

lonham12 wrote:

BrixtonSaint wrote:

lonham12 wrote:
Thanks for proving my point. Ignorance must be bliss. I'd be very careful using the word 'plagiarise' to justify your perspective on the winning design. Its an easy out for someone clutching at straws to elevate their personal position. Ditto for the use of sarcasm...

If by personal position you mean I was one of the submitters to the competition or linked to one, or even had a preference for one, then I'm sorry, that's not me. If you look at my original post you'll see how excited I was with the prospect of the piece coming to Southampton. There are no 'sour grapes' on my part, just complete bafflement as to how yet again, Southampton can never do anything right.
I would be VERY interested to know when Mr Hancock got to know about the project. If it was beyond the point at which the shortlist was drawn up, then I feel there are questions that need to be answered.
My only agenda is to see our city as a beacon for visitors and cultural heritage on the south coast. Something it has failed to grasp time and time again.
As regards to ignorance, probably. In fact yes, I'm ignorant of the fact that a competition like this could be scammed in such a manner.

And what if you discovered from the committee that Mr. Hancock had in fact submitted his entry prior to the shortlist being drawn up? A point that everyone appears to have overlooked when casting dispersions of cheating and plagiarism at Mr. Hancock and at the committee choosing his design.
Where is your argument then along with others on this comment list should this be proven otherwise?
The committee obviously changed their mind for whatever reason WHICH is their prerogative to do so. Do you really think that in this day and age with accountability and freedom of information that the decision about a public monument would be 'cloak and dagger'? Be real. Its a monument not a multi-million pound business deal lining someone's personal pocket through outright corruption.
A competition scam? Please! The competition was to get a range of entries on the table. That's it. The 6 published finalists were revisited in the decision making process for whatever reason and a different agreement was reached by the collective. Give the committee some credit for doing their job and making a final decision. They made a choice irrespective of what others believed were in the competition boundaries. Hence, my reference to sour grapes.
If you believe your agenda is truly for bettering this city as a beacon then you are contradicting yourself. This monument is not a failure in representing Southampton to visitors. Let alone our heritage and the role of the Spitfire. To impede its creation through all of this nonsense of conspiracy and assumption is.
I wonder how many people will eat their words and apologise to Mr. Hancock and the committee once all is 'revealed' should it be discovered that no wrong was done? I doubt that anybody on here that have taken the pessimist or conspiracy approach route would. It amazes me how quickly everyone is prepared to go off on a tangent without either knowing the facts or bothering to ask the source. I feel sorry for all involved should this witch hunt be unfounded, especially Mr. Hancock - a creative designer who gave it a go, was chosen successfully, only to have his shining moment tarnished by a select few with an 'agenda' to follow.

a) who mentioned anything about "lining someone's personal pocket through outright corruption"?

b) "Do you really think that in this day and age with accountability and freedom of information that the decision about a public monument would be 'cloak and dagger'?" - Yes

c) "The committee obviously changed their mind for whatever reason WHICH is their prerogative to do so." - Explain it then.

d) "I wonder how many people will eat their words and apologise to Mr. Hancock and the committee once all is 'revealed' should it be discovered that no wrong was done?" - I look forward to it & will gladly eat them, it doesn't detract from the fact that they've allowed this situation to arise. They should've explained in when publishing the result.

e) When I opened the news page this morning to see the winning design, I was bowled over and yet again, the optimistic me only had good thoughts.

f) It's a fantastic design and one I would love to see, such a pity it came about in such an underhand way.

g) "To impede its creation through all of this nonsense of conspiracy and assumption is." - I don't want to impede it. I, along with the unfortunate souls who were asked to do further work on their propositions are deserving of an explanation. No conspiracies as far as I can remember (sorry not reading through all the comments again) - and well, sorry if you're left without an explanation, assumptions are bound to be drawn

FATTank wrote:
very nice design, but i thought the competition was totally open to the pubic? Hancock is a Professional, and he was not even in the short list? what is going on? I smell a rat with this one.....

...hey! Let's not split hairs eh?
Back to the drawing board with this please, this idea floats.
Yes, a Supermarine Spitfire in the Solent/ Itchen mouth on floats, marrying the City's nautical and aeronautical heritage, appeasing our erstwhile allies (and peaceniks) worldwide whilst recognising the Spits connection and lineage from the seaplane and the Schneidder Trophy.
Why not? A proper statue of liberty!

Spitting Fire write; For anyone that wishes to view Colin Lee design featured in the Echo from 2007 where the similarities are uncanny, luckily someone made a pdf of it and posted it online. http://www.shhas.co.

uk/SHHAS%20MISC/shha

s%20docs/EC_20071221

_MAIN_TAC_010.pdf

Have just looked at the link - stunning designs with remarkable similarities...

The 'plot' thickens..?

Before I go any further, please note I am not a designer, I did not submit an entry and I'm current 4,500 miles.

So... the whole issue can be solved if the Selection Committee simply stated:

(a) When did the Winner submit his design?

(b) If before the Final Six were selected, why wasn't it included in the Final Six?

(c) If after the Final Six were selected, did the Winner have the opportunity of seeing these designs before submitting his own?

(d) At what stage did the Selection Committee decide on the Winner - before or after naming the Final Six?

(e) Did the Selection Committee use the Final Six simply as a method to persaude the Public to give money?

(f) Why didn't the Selection Committee explain what happened when they made the announcement?

(g) And, last of all, thank you to Miles Way for giving a link to Colin Lee's original winning design (see comment above at 3:33pm today). Having now seen this design plus the Final Six, I can fully understand why some people are questioning the originality of the new Winner.

Greetings to our international friends that have come here to air their views, good to see you!
.
What truly dismays me with some of the comments on here today is how some prefer to belittle the attributes of those that are speaking out against this result rather than see objectively the many discrepancies of this result.
.
But rather than us all fight it out here, shouldn't we all be asking right now... where is the statement from Hannides and the Tribute Foundation? Where is the apology and explanation to the final 6 that were asked to submit MORE plans after they were shortlisted only to have chosen someone completely different in the end? Why is the Echo not acting of the controversy?

As to Colin Lee's design pdf... Just google "Spitfire memorial" and the link is 15th on the result page. Not hard for people to find is it!

chrisdraper wrote:
As one of the ORIGINAL SIX finalists I think it is important to say that we await clarification from the organizers regarding their decision. At that point we will decide on our next action.

They are taking their time in responding back to you Gentlemen it seems!

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Winners wrote:

FATTank wrote:
very nice design, but i thought the competition was totally open to the pubic? Hancock is a Professional, and he was not even in the short list? what is going on? I smell a rat with this one.....

Long live the conspirators!! Excelling in complaining oh how easy that is! Probably don't have any creative bones in their body. Get over it. A great design, brilliant idea, it will be a fantastic addition to the area. Get on the team and support this wonderful piece of architecture - Well done Mr Hancock - don't let them get you down - some people just live to complain - what a boring life!

Well many of them think they actually have justifible complaints. Nothing against the person's design that has been chosen, but if you run a competition and then chose another random design that wasn't in the final six then questions DO have to be asked! I would be furious too if I was one of the top six. As LR says a comment from Hanides as to what is going on needs to be sought. Echo, your next story me thinks...

I do feel so sad for the 6. You can't begin to imagine the amount of hard work they have done and further asked to do, only to have the Foundation select someone else we can speculate was from the pile of entrants again, who previously was not considered worthy of being in the final 6. All 300 entrants into this competition must feel cheated also. You are right, questions DO have to be asked and explanations given!

Balvine wrote:
The 'plot' thickens..?

Before I go any further, please note I am not a designer, I did not submit an entry and I'm current 4,500 miles.

So... the whole issue can be solved if the Selection Committee simply stated:

(a) When did the Winner submit his design?

(b) If before the Final Six were selected, why wasn't it included in the Final Six?

(c) If after the Final Six were selected, did the Winner have the opportunity of seeing these designs before submitting his own?

(d) At what stage did the Selection Committee decide on the Winner - before or after naming the Final Six?

(e) Did the Selection Committee use the Final Six simply as a method to persaude the Public to give money?

(f) Why didn't the Selection Committee explain what happened when they made the announcement?

(g) And, last of all, thank you to Miles Way for giving a link to Colin Lee's original winning design (see comment above at 3:33pm today). Having now seen this design plus the Final Six, I can fully understand why some people are questioning the originality of the new Winner.

Hear - hear!!! The voice of sound, calm, collective, rational reason – the exact voice we six shortlisters (and silently on behalf of poor Colin Lee) have been requesting since this 'mystery' unfolded.

And FATTank, go troll some forum somewhere. Your head sounds like it may be a container matching that of your username.

Sorry FATtank I'm going blind with quote marks - I meant Winners! He's a loser!!

... and for anyone interested why I might be wondering what happened – here's a link to a flickr set of all the images constituted in my design: http://www.flickr.co
m/photos/jonlucas/se
ts/72157625342034606
/

JonLucas wrote:
... and for anyone interested why I might be wondering what happened – here's a link to a flickr set of all the images constituted in my design: http://www.flickr.co

m/photos/jonlucas/se

ts/72157625342034606

/

My goodness Jon. Thankyou for posting here the further work you were asked to put in. I am gobsmacked. Shocked by the scale in which you were forced to further detail out your design. I don't think that was right at all, and not stipulated in the competition launch anywhere either. I'm sure that not all 300 entrants would be able to then detail out so thoroughly, and the Foundation would have known that, therefore not everyone had a fair chance with the judging in the first place. They should not have asked this of you, and were meant to have analysed this themselves based on your original submission. Did they also ask you to add any costing and structural work with this second submission? But I'm sure those that had access would have added it in anyway, it saves them then employing someone to do it... a great advantage over the rest. But that begs the question, where the hell did Hancock come from anyway?!
.
I've said all along this should have been a comp for professionals, not an Open competition. The Telegraph mentions: "The foundation will employ a team of designers and engineers to help to turn the winning entry into reality." This implies that those without the expertise in architecture and design do have as much of a chance of winning as those that do. http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/newstopi
cs/world-war-2/battl
e-of-britain/7896297
/Competition-launche
d-to-design-national
-memorial-for-the-Sp
itfire.html This probably goes against the the British Code of Advertising, Sale Promotion and Direct Marketing (CAD code) in the running of competitions and prize promotions. (more info here: http://www.copyadvic
e.org.uk/Ad-Advice/H
elp-Notes/Promotions
-with-Prizes.aspx)
.

I have worried that the Competition has all along been a ploy to get the public making donations (reports of up to £5,000 given in good faith along with entry submissions at the time) Whilst all along they were looking for a professional to design something for them, and do it for free; for the accolade it would bring them, whilst hoard up as many different design ideas as they could into the bargain to come up with something good.
.
There are now serious questions to be answered. I'm delighted to hear that the 6 finalists are working together to get answers for us all! And further delay shows that the Foundation stupidly did not expect such backlash. Keep us informed!

Also importantly seek to get the explanations in writing. Then publish them on your sites for the public to see. As sadly it looks like fellow Foundation member Ian Murry and his Daily Echo are reluctant at the moment to go any further on this right now. So the public majority are currently shielded from any of this controversy. Just think of poor Colin Lee, he is probably totally unaware!
.
So unless they publish something soon you could actually say unlike my earlier assumption that indeed the Daily Echo under Murry's control on this issue is afterall, biased.
.
And where is the 31 page winning design brochure Daily Echo?! Is there a paper copy available? You promised in the paper there would be one online and I am STILL WAITING! "Sorry but we are unable to provide, as promised, a link to the winning design brochure for technical reasons. " --- hmmm.... I feel you are reluctant to put it out now because of the potential explosive material it may contain for the case of the finalists. SHAME ON YOU DAILY ECHO WITH YOUR UNFULFILLED PROMISES! PUBLISH IT!

BrixtonSaint wrote:
I was so excited when I read the piece. Finally Southampton would have an art work to be proud of. Then I began reading the comments and thought...'Wow, there's no one on here bleating on about how the money could be better spent' etc etc. Support for public art in Southampton?....sure

ly not.
And then the story unfolds. Can this city of ours do anything right at all? Another shameful exhibition of just how not to go about things.
The city is a joke. And it all stems from the far from civically minded ego maniacs within the Council going back to the early days of post WWII.
Shame on you

"civically minded ego maniacs within the Council " I'll say! This spitfire monument was never "Chairman" Councillor John Hannides brainchild, he just picked the idea up off of someone else and ran with it. So why the hell should he have put himself in the position of Chairman in the first place? Does that really qualify him to be in such a position? He's made a right mess of this whole thing, first Ken Potts now this. He should resign his chairmanship at once to save face, and attempt to make a mends of this whole mess.

OMG! I've found another article by Mr. Smith that he has since written yesterday, which is the most shocking insult and contradiction I have ever seen!

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/8624247.
Thumbs_up_for_Spitfi
re_monument/

So this pulls many conclusions to my comment on the Daily Echo reaction to the controversy just above, a complete whitewash.

Well this is curiouser and curiouser. What's that phrase stuck in my throat? 'Jobs for the boys'?

SpittingFire and anyone who is disgusted with this process - and keen on having fair play win the day, feel free to contact me at: spitfire@homeland.pl
us.com - I can help with more background on this.

I'm gratified to see other well meaning individuals willing to speak out on their dismay and displeasure.

The Echo's, the Foundation's and Mr Hancock's silence (other than gloating and harping on about the brilliance of the winner's entry!!) is conspicuous. Note also his twitter feed on @nicholashancock.

Yes Mr. Hancock has referred to every online article on this accept for ones the Daily Echo, the local newspaper of where his design will be built. How interesting!

BUT WAIT! Reading more closely Mr. Smith's article on Monday, he has given us a crucial key in the judgement of the Foundation...

"A shortlist were tested for their feasibility by the city’s Spitfire Tribute Foundation which picked a fully costed concept by renowned Australian designer and Spitfire enthusiast Nick Hancock. "

"which picked a fully costed concept"
.
I repeat...
.
"which PICKED a FULLY COSTED concept"

"FULLY COSTED"! And that was what the Foundation were meant to do after for the winner of the competition, not for the entrants to do.

Perhaps this was the only key Matt could put in and snuck it through, in which case I sincerely congratulate you Mr. Smith on this evidence!

Would it not be easier if the Organisers simply held a press conference and answered all these questions?

While The Tremeloes may declare "Silence IS Golden", I think everyone else would prefer an honest explanation how the Winner failed to be included in the Final Six.

And, at the same time, perhaps the excellent Daily Echo could interview the Spitfire Trust and publish a follow-up article.

I would like to express how sorry i feel for all those who made there best effort to come up with a great design, and think it is a disgrace at the way this has all been handled in regard to choosing the winnning design, because it was clearly not part of the final 6 designs, and as stated in today's echo using the excuse of the design not being in the final 6 because of administration issues(rubbish) and as an engineer this design would cost alot more than 2million pounds, i think this is a complete set up and a scam, i think all final 6 designers should get a written apology from the editor of the echo and foundation for disrespecting there designs and hard efforts they have put into the design's. none of this has gone through the correct procedure as none of the designs specifications are in the choosen design.

Dear race-around

If you would like to get in contact here is my email

cdraperillustration@
hotmail.com

chris draper one of the PUBLISHED FINALISTS.

Couldn't have put it better myself. Good show race-around!

Hi

As one of the six finalists I have written and verbal confirmation that the Hancock design was NOT part of the original shortlist and was only added after our designs were published Nationally. After the Hancock design was added to the shortlist at a board meeting of the Spitfire Tribute foundation (21st september) we were not notified or made aware of the addition. correspondence with the foundation after this date only ever stated SIX shortlisted designs. This was not an oversight as Cllr Hannides stated today. We had no idea that there was a secret entry and the foundation thought it was okay not to tell us. Then that secret design wins the competition. Oh come on !! This may not be sinister or corrupt but it is a shambles and extremely unprofessional. A terrible way to start a fund raising campaign. And more importantly a slur on the spitfire and Mitchell.

Oh and now look! bdonline, Building Design, now reports that there was a shortlist of 7! disgusting.

http://www.bdonline.
co.uk/news/uk/hancoc
k-named-as-spitfire-
memorial-competition
-winner/5008641.arti
cle#comments

And the comments don't look good there either!

And as for the report on the public reaction on the winning design today, don't get me started on that! And no, I no longer criticise Matt Smith's latest piece, I can see now that he may just be a puppet in this outrageous cover-up. Poor man.

what a waste of everyone’s time. A competition that was rigged probably from the start. Someone on the committee should apologise to the final 6 who were obviously cheated.

You would think someone would have made even the slightest attempt to apologize and explain this mess to us. Good luck Mr Hancock with your dealings with this foundation. Its not a good way to start a working relationship.

Chris Draper one of the ORIGINAL SIX shortlisted designers

Congratulations Chris for being a professional. Unlike some of the righteous saviours of principles on here. The facts are the foundation are paying for this NO ONE ELSE. If Mr Hancocks was considered the best the thats what we should have THE BEST... As for design being original, well I can see the difference as I can see similarities in all the presentations.
Unless Mr Lee has complained and would like to take it further then one can only assume there is no substance in the accusations - get a life

Can i suggest the following...you (we) need to get off of these forums - the damage has been done to the Echo and inflammatory or otherwise speculative outbursts will just make the group most outraged appear like a small NIMBY group that the Echo/Council/Foundat
ion can point at and dismiss as a minority group of angry individuals. I have seen this done and is very effective as it is so believable by the public - depressing as it is, you (we) need to start playing a much more manipulative PR game.

For it is this that will achieve results and prompt action:
1. approach the echo's competitors (Evening Argus, The Southampton Press, Radio Stations) with an 'exclusive' story / interview with the final 6 and implicate the Echo as part of a badly/fraudulently run competition
2. approach BD / The Telegraph / Design Week and all the others who have incorrectly reported this story with the same
3. Then approach their competitors Architects Journal / The Times / Creative Review
4. agree on some concise key messages (4-5) and stick to them
5. remove speculation, conjecture or emotion from the posts, press statements
6. start a facebook group with an emotive title and start building a wide base of support
7. approach the local MP, inward investment agency and any other design or art orientated QUANGO's in Hampshire for support

I've saved this post for when it inevitably gets removed...

Hi 995912

Please contact me

cdraperillustration@
hotmail.com

regards

chris draper

Attn Matt Smith

Please could you, as the author at the top of this page, approach The Trust and find out why there is this blanket of secrecy?

And ask Cllr Hannides to answer the simple questions voiced on this page.

If there is nothing to hide... then why hide it...?

If there is something being hidden, then please Mr Smith uncover it before this sorry tale causes permanent damage to the good cause of creating a memorial to the Spitfire.

Thank you for showing me the direction to build on this further. I must say to be aware of those media outlets owned by the Gannett Company, i.e This Echo and the Argus, etc. they are all interlinked and will not want to take on one of their own. We should see also the advice of the Architects Registration Board as it seems there are many breaches of their code.

Balvine wrote:
Attn Matt Smith

Please could you, as the author at the top of this page, approach The Trust and find out why there is this blanket of secrecy?

And ask Cllr Hannides to answer the simple questions voiced on this page.

If there is nothing to hide... then why hide it...?

If there is something being hidden, then please Mr Smith uncover it before this sorry tale causes permanent damage to the good cause of creating a memorial to the Spitfire.

Unfortunately whether Mr. Smith does know more than he can tell he has his hands tied in all this as a reporter for the Echo, and simply cannot speak out on this paper by himself. His Editor will not let him, it is too explosive for the Editor's own sake and the reputation of the Paper. Because of this neither should Smith be implicated in a cover-up.
.
They have attempted yesterday (written under Smith's hand) to quash the speculation that has risen by stating in the paper (but not online) that Hannides called this simply an an administrate oversight that Hancock was left out of the shortlist. I find it interesting also that Mr. Smith was not allowed to directly quote Councillor Hannides this time either. And to add to that, there still was no apology.

SpittingFire wrote:

Balvine wrote:
Attn Matt Smith

Please could you, as the author at the top of this page, approach The Trust and find out why there is this blanket of secrecy?

And ask Cllr Hannides to answer the simple questions voiced on this page.

If there is nothing to hide... then why hide it...?

If there is something being hidden, then please Mr Smith uncover it before this sorry tale causes permanent damage to the good cause of creating a memorial to the Spitfire.

Unfortunately whether Mr. Smith does know more than he can tell he has his hands tied in all this as a reporter for the Echo, and simply cannot speak out on this paper by himself. His Editor will not let him, it is too explosive for the Editor's own sake and the reputation of the Paper. Because of this neither should Smith be implicated in a cover-up.
.
They have attempted yesterday (written under Smith's hand) to quash the speculation that has risen by stating in the paper (but not online) that Hannides called this simply an an administrate oversight that Hancock was left out of the shortlist. I find it interesting also that Mr. Smith was not allowed to directly quote Councillor Hannides this time either. And to add to that, there still was no apology.

Infact I've just found that newspaper article has been published online!

http://www.flickr.co
m/photos/jonlucas/51
62758274/

Winners wrote:
Congratulations Chris for being a professional. Unlike some of the righteous saviours of principles on here. The facts are the foundation are paying for this NO ONE ELSE. If Mr Hancocks was considered the best the thats what we should have THE BEST... As for design being original, well I can see the difference as I can see similarities in all the presentations.
Unless Mr Lee has complained and would like to take it further then one can only assume there is no substance in the accusations - get a life

"The facts are the foundation are paying for this NO ONE ELSE" - pardon Winners is that your facts is it?
...
The article states:
"The Foundation aims to raise most of the £2m by the end of 2011 to begin construction... Corporate sponsors, individual donors and grant making bodies will be approached for funds. "

Doesn't sound like the Foundation are paying for any of it to me! Perhaps they will all pay a price in the end though.
.
And I could go back to my old argument on do those on the Foundation really know best? But I think you're a waste of my time so I won't bother.

Winners wrote:
Congratulations Chris for being a professional. Unlike some of the righteous saviours of principles on here. The facts are the foundation are paying for this NO ONE ELSE. If Mr Hancocks was considered the best the thats what we should have THE BEST... As for design being original, well I can see the difference as I can see similarities in all the presentations.
Unless Mr Lee has complained and would like to take it further then one can only assume there is no substance in the accusations - get a life

Well, in fact, the Foundation will not be paying for it – donors will be. The Foundation will funnel the money. Anyway, it's testament to your somewhat ruthless attitude that you make the assumption that Colin Lee would discover this furore – as if he should check on a daily basis just to see if a design he did in 2007 has popped in a brand new guise in 2010. If he has any sense he'll never give this newspaper a second glance.

You also seem to take some perverse delight in other people's misfortune. Odd. It's been pretty soul-destroying to innocently and enthusiastically create a solution for a British landmark only to have that spirit turned on its head.

Quite simply, it's bad enough to have the problem of the winning design with seemingly so many influences, but just as bad (as a good many right-minded individuals have expressed above - ) is the deafening silence from the Foundation and indeed the winner. Not a willful peep from any of them. How kind. It's rude at best, and highly suspicious at worst.

If I were any of them (with nothing to hide) I would have long ago spoken out. What could there be preventing that? If genuine mistakes have been made, then apologise for them. If not, and there is a case to answer, well, I would probably stay quiet, talk a lot about my next actions and plan how I can get out of this with my job and reputation in tact.

And by the way I don't watch the X-Files.

Four days... and counting...

JonLucas wrote:

Winners wrote:
Congratulations Chris for being a professional. Unlike some of the righteous saviours of principles on here. The facts are the foundation are paying for this NO ONE ELSE. If Mr Hancocks was considered the best the thats what we should have THE BEST... As for design being original, well I can see the difference as I can see similarities in all the presentations.
Unless Mr Lee has complained and would like to take it further then one can only assume there is no substance in the accusations - get a life

Well, in fact, the Foundation will not be paying for it – donors will be. The Foundation will funnel the money. Anyway, it's testament to your somewhat ruthless attitude that you make the assumption that Colin Lee would discover this furore – as if he should check on a daily basis just to see if a design he did in 2007 has popped in a brand new guise in 2010. If he has any sense he'll never give this newspaper a second glance.

You also seem to take some perverse delight in other people's misfortune. Odd. It's been pretty soul-destroying to innocently and enthusiastically create a solution for a British landmark only to have that spirit turned on its head.

Quite simply, it's bad enough to have the problem of the winning design with seemingly so many influences, but just as bad (as a good many right-minded individuals have expressed above - ) is the deafening silence from the Foundation and indeed the winner. Not a willful peep from any of them. How kind. It's rude at best, and highly suspicious at worst.

If I were any of them (with nothing to hide) I would have long ago spoken out. What could there be preventing that? If genuine mistakes have been made, then apologise for them. If not, and there is a case to answer, well, I would probably stay quiet, talk a lot about my next actions and plan how I can get out of this with my job and reputation in tact.

And by the way I don't watch the X-Files.

Four days... and counting...

QUOTE JON: "...if...there is a case to answer, well, I would probably stay quiet, talk a lot about my next actions and plan how I can get out of this with my job and reputation in tact..." "Four days... and counting..." You mean the Foundation have not responded to the 6 finalists on this issue, let alone apologised to you all in private for the "administrative oversight"? There is something seriously wrong with that indeed, to be leaving it so long aswell... Yes, they are worried and the silence is looking even more bad.
.
You know Jon, before coming on this website and seeing some peoples comments and reactions to what others have said, I've never had such contact with such arrogant and ignorant people that there are out there. Maybe this is in part due to the well-informing content the uppermost on the Echo has put out, and consequently the quality of its audience it brings back in. And you see these such commentators all over the other those local news stories too, not just this one. Such a pity.

"Not a willful peep from any of them"
.
There we go. Says it all really.

Sorry to keep adding my penny's worth... but... surely The Foundation could clear up any 'misunderstandings' by answering some simple questions:

Was the "winning" design submitted before or after the deadline?

Did the "Winner" have the advantage of seeing the Six Final Designs before submitting his design?

Why was Mr Lee's winning design from the previous competition discarded?

At the moment, anybody reading this web-page would form the obvious conclusion that The Foundation are doing themselves, The "Winner", The Final Six and the heritage of The Spitfire a great disservice by remaining silent.

Balvine wrote:
Sorry to keep adding my penny's worth... but... surely The Foundation could clear up any 'misunderstandings' by answering some simple questions:

Was the "winning" design submitted before or after the deadline?

Did the "Winner" have the advantage of seeing the Six Final Designs before submitting his design?

Why was Mr Lee's winning design from the previous competition discarded?

At the moment, anybody reading this web-page would form the obvious conclusion that The Foundation are doing themselves, The "Winner", The Final Six and the heritage of The Spitfire a great disservice by remaining silent.

Don't apologise at all Balvine! I think it is marvellous that you are here so far away yet contributing to this discussion! And you are also very rational and collected about it too, which is a good example to me. I am hot-headed about it, but it's my town. My home-town. and when you can see through what's happened here they just mustn't be allowed to get away with it, I will not rest. To see this monster built now I cannot bare. To have the wider public oblivious to what has undergone, with ambiguous admissions of an "administrative oversight" played down in the paper to cap it all... How infuriating!
.
Yes Balvine, these are the sensible questions we'd all need answered, and everyone is still waiting for them. And your last sentence is an important one. None of this looks good. And there is a high price to pay. The power of the internet should not be under-estimated, just look how on this very site the true final 6 were able to come together one this. I bet the Foundation didn't expect that!

Its a great design but the underhand way this has all come about is highly suspicous and i hope all 6 of you get some answers at least for all the effort you have put in.Good luck people.

Mr Hannides & The Foundation - the longer this goes on the more bitter the feeling. Why can you not simply come out with a public explanation and apology to end the situation. If choosing Mr Hancock's design has saved a bundle in these belt tightening times, then let us know. As it is, if I were Mr Hancock, I would seriously be reconsidering my position. Who would want to win anything in such an underhand way?
You owe us an explanation or is your collaboration with the Echo your protection as it continues to surpress this development in the story.

wilson castaway wrote:
Its a great design but the underhand way this has all come about is highly suspicous and i hope all 6 of you get some answers at least for all the effort you have put in.Good luck people.

You know my biggest fear in all this is that the Foundation will, are, or have approached the 6 with some sort of lucrative offer. There is alot at stake for these people. And they'll do anything to keep them quiet.

BrixtonSaint wrote:
Mr Hannides & The Foundation - the longer this goes on the more bitter the feeling. Why can you not simply come out with a public explanation and apology to end the situation. If choosing Mr Hancock's design has saved a bundle in these belt tightening times, then let us know. As it is, if I were Mr Hancock, I would seriously be reconsidering my position. Who would want to win anything in such an underhand way?
You owe us an explanation or is your collaboration with the Echo your protection as it continues to surpress this development in the story.

Yes, their collaboration with the Echo their is protection. There is a great deal at stake here BrixtonSaint for these people. They'll do anything to keep the noise down. And will, I expect reach down in their underhand ways again in order to keep them quiet.

And as the Foundation is busy deciding how to stop them going further to expose this truth, I feel there is something else going on now we are not a party to.

chrisdraper wrote:
Hi

As one of the six finalists I have written and verbal confirmation that the Hancock design was NOT part of the original shortlist and was only added after our designs were published Nationally. After the Hancock design was added to the shortlist at a board meeting of the Spitfire Tribute foundation (21st september) we were not notified or made aware of the addition. correspondence with the foundation after this date only ever stated SIX shortlisted designs. This was not an oversight as Cllr Hannides stated today. We had no idea that there was a secret entry and the foundation thought it was okay not to tell us. Then that secret design wins the competition. Oh come on !! This may not be sinister or corrupt but it is a shambles and extremely unprofessional. A terrible way to start a fund raising campaign. And more importantly a slur on the spitfire and Mitchell.

I believe it is this very post above that has lead me to believe my conclusions today.

And I would call it corrupt, yes I would Chris.

While I am obviously saddened at the way Mr Hancock's design was added to the Final Six Shortlist after these designs were published, of more importance is when Mr Hancock submitted his design...

Please could the Spitfire Trust answer this question that has appeared many times: "Did Mr Hancock submit his design before or after the Final Six Designs had been publicised?".

The answer to this question will then let everyone know if The Trust has just been incompetent (sad but liveable with) OR was there a conspiracy to give Mr Hancock an unfair advantage over all the other Designers.

Last of all, please could fellow contributors be slightly nicer to the Daily Echo... after all, they are letting us use their website...