Thumbs up for Spitfire monument (From Daily Echo)

wow an airfix plane

It would be nice if they could make it as large as the cranes so that it can be seen and not over shadowed.

for Christ's sake Echo, tell it like it is. Your credibility is tumbling

OMG! THIS IS THE MOST SHOCKING TITLE I'VE NOT EVEN READ THE CONTENT YET!!!!!!!!

This article and title is quite unbelievable not to mention inaccurate. This really truly is a disgrace. How I feel for the poor duped 6 finalists now, I can't help but think that they've been totally swept under the carpet. What kind of treatment is this? This is horrifying and I can't believe that they (Echo and Foundation) will be able to get away with it. I do hope the 6 peruse with strong action against this result. How tainted the legend of the Spitfire is with this dire situation in mind.
.

Perhaps Mr. Smith should take a look over the comments left to the report he wrote on Saturday 2 days ago. It really does make him look stupid writing this article since then. Never mind the unbalanced poll, read the comments Smith you fo0l! You disgust me.
.
http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/8621985.
Unveiled__Spitfire_t
ribute_winner/

I think that you will find that the reporters have no control over what gets put into the paper. The Editor makes all those decisions & alters the copy to his own distorted world view.

Don't be too hard on this comment Dan, I'm on your side this time!

Spot O'Bother wrote:
I think that you will find that the reporters have no control over what gets put into the paper. The Editor makes all those decisions & alters the copy to his own distorted world view.

Don't be too hard on this comment Dan, I'm on your side this time!

And one of the Foundation "Members" Mr Ian Murray... who just happens to be the Editor of the Echo.
.
No investigative journalism allowed here methinks

my comment got removed?!?!

How can this be? it didn't say anything inflamatory...nor did it have anything in it that was rude or untrue...

what i did do was criticise the competition and how it had has been run.

i think the concerns that the people have about the Echo being a mouthpiece of the council and this process are well founded.

i am going to redraft my comment and try again - thankfully i kept a copy and paste of most of it for this exact reason

I am just thankful that my comments have been able to say up, none wiped yet. I also have been saving these webpages onto my computer just incase they happen to delete the controversial ones questioning the legitimacy of this winning design. An action of which would speak for itself.

Spot O'Bother wrote:
I think that you will find that the reporters have no control over what gets put into the paper. The Editor makes all those decisions & alters the copy to his own distorted world view.

Don't be too hard on this comment Dan, I'm on your side this time!

Mr. Smith needs to get some backbone then as it's his name that's being dragged through the mud. Stand up for yourself Mr. Smith!

BUT WAIT! Reading more closely Mr. Smith has given us a cructial 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 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!

SpittingFire wrote:
BUT WAIT! Reading more closely Mr. Smith has given us a cructial 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 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!

Hello SpittingFire... thankyou.. I am sitting next to one of the short listed finalists and am writing from an informed position. Your passion and tenacious enthusiasm is appreciated.
We are all dismayed by what has occured and your sentiments reflect the mood of many.. We are not letting this rest.... keep up the good work!!

I am one of the original 6. This is a very sad story indeed for the people of Southampton and the ambitions of those involved to create a Tribute for the Spitfire here. Originally well intentioned but now I understand the chequered history of this Tribute Foundation and the incompetence of those managing it, I truly wish I had never got involved. The fantastic legacy
of the Spitfire and all those who helped bring it to life should be celebrated with ingenuity and integrity not a replica design exercise. I have been sickened by the way the original 6 have been treated by the Foundation and Southampton Council. We all entered to win, and no-doubt all see elements in each others work we admire or question but we have acted with honesty and integrity throughout and have not entered this competition by the back door to win in the manner Nick Hancock appears to have. He was not short listed and has had the benefit of our designs and we have seen nothing of his until the "win" . Now having spoken and corresponded in detail with original short listed designers we will not be passed over like this without a full and detailed series of questions being answered to our satisfaction. This process is under way. The public will decide the Tribute they want by putting their hands in their pockets and giving £2,000,000.00 for it to be built. The "winning" design draws on design details past and present, very little of any merit is new. The original Colin Lee design rejected by the Foundation is back in not just in spirit but in detail, this is not right. Other significant elements are fused into the "pick and mix" approach Nick Hancock has in my view taken. Look again in detail if you doubt this. May be no one is going to care too much about this after a while, in the end you always get what you settle for. I am sure that the Spitfire Tribute Foundation who have not demonstrated a credible plan to deliver this have grasped a way out of their embarrassment. We the original short listed designers will continue to act with integrity we hope at some point the Spitfire Tribute Foundation joins in.
Martin Witts

You are very welcome Pinetree and finalist with you! They are encouraging words and I really appreciate them! I know there's something very wrong with all this, and I won't rest until it's out there. Yes, when the shortlist was announced I had my fierce criticisms over the Foundation then, whether they really were the best people to choose, but I would never have believed them capable of anything like this. After talking to a couple of the finalists through this website shortly after the shortlist was announced I was humbled and wished them all equally well, and looked forward to the winner. Then to open my paper on Saturday and see what I saw, well you can read my reaction to that! Then to hear of the extra work that they had to put in! Oh it's sickening!
.
At times I've been wondering if I am just talking to myself on here and everyone else has moved off this story now and no-one's reading my ramblings. So your comment really means alot. I've surmised alot today, I shall post below...




Yes,

As JonLucas said on the tribute winner thread about Hancock gloating, I think we should be thankful Nick Hancock's gloating, as I believe in my view anyway, he has shot himself in the foot in doing so....
.
It was reading his personal statement to winning the contest on his website which for me, the most damning piece of evidence against him (I've got screen shots, saved the page and sourced it so it's too late to take that info down now Hancock!). Reading between the lines, something was not right at all.
.
Here, we could see where he thanks those for help: "Bruce Patterson of Quantem has meticulously worked through both the program and costs " and... "Buro Happold defined and developed the structural solution", which allowed me to speculate (and posted above, 5:04am Mon 8 Nov 10) as to if they were employed or asked of by the Foundation to assess the finalists designs on their feasibility (the true ones) or if Hancock had this work done himself and submitted it all to the Foundation. (And the Foundation asked only for a design on an A3 piece of paper with a brief description on the back!) A quick look into the names and possible links and various boastings of "his team" here there and everywhere, suggest that they were probably those he has called on and not asked of by the Foundation.
.
But actually it was Matt Smith himself, in his next article on that Monday 8th who was able sneak in the answer to my question; "has Nick knocked on the consultancies doors and got the costing work done beforehand..."?
.
Answer: "...the city’s Spitfire Tribute Foundation which picked a fully costed concept..." There it is. Lets look at it again!
.
"...the city’s Spitfire Tribute Foundation which picked a fully costed concept..." (http://www.dailyech


o.co.uk/news/8624247


.Thumbs_up_for_Spitf


ire_monument/)
.
There it is. Hancock had done all the work himself on the sly and submitted this to the Foundation. In other-words he cheated. Of course, there is no evidence for me at which point he had done this, whether it was in the competition time frame or beyond it... but someone has won this competition who was not a finalist, who cheated and defied the rules of the competition and had given the Foundation a "fully costed concept", and then was claimed as the winner, well...

And with Chris Draper's evidence of how Hancock came into being, contradicting Hannides when he's said yesterday to have claimed it was an administration error... I think we can safely say that the truth is certainly unravelling....

Of Mr. Smith, NOW THERE'S HEROISM!
.
Please accept my apologies for me slating you so much on your reporting beforehand Matt. It wasn't until another comment pointed it out that I did not realise how contrived those uppermost on the Echo could be. And if you were on the picket line yesterday, I salute you! And I'll join you and show my support next time!

skipwitts wrote:
I am one of the original 6. This is a very sad story indeed for the people of Southampton and the ambitions of those involved to create a Tribute for the Spitfire here. Originally well intentioned but now I understand the chequered history of this Tribute Foundation and the incompetence of those managing it, I truly wish I had never got involved. The fantastic legacy
of the Spitfire and all those who helped bring it to life should be celebrated with ingenuity and integrity not a replica design exercise. I have been sickened by the way the original 6 have been treated by the Foundation and Southampton Council. We all entered to win, and no-doubt all see elements in each others work we admire or question but we have acted with honesty and integrity throughout and have not entered this competition by the back door to win in the manner Nick Hancock appears to have. He was not short listed and has had the benefit of our designs and we have seen nothing of his until the "win" . Now having spoken and corresponded in detail with original short listed designers we will not be passed over like this without a full and detailed series of questions being answered to our satisfaction. This process is under way. The public will decide the Tribute they want by putting their hands in their pockets and giving £2,000,000.00 for it to be built. The "winning" design draws on design details past and present, very little of any merit is new. The original Colin Lee design rejected by the Foundation is back in not just in spirit but in detail, this is not right. Other significant elements are fused into the "pick and mix" approach Nick Hancock has in my view taken. Look again in detail if you doubt this. May be no one is going to care too much about this after a while, in the end you always get what you settle for. I am sure that the Spitfire Tribute Foundation who have not demonstrated a credible plan to deliver this have grasped a way out of their embarrassment. We the original short listed designers will continue to act with integrity we hope at some point the Spitfire Tribute Foundation joins in.
Martin Witts

Martin, such a poignant and emotive post and nothing saddens me more than to read this. It is truly dreadful to hear that you now wish you never got involved, and as a finalist to say that is a most awful tragedy. The Foundation have destroyed this for everyone, especially those that really cared.
.
Personally I think this design can simply no longer go ahead. To have it as a monument to our city now, Simply its mere presence will forever be a vile insinuation to the people of Southampton.

Keep fighting Martin with courageous integrity, the truth will be revealed!

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...

995912 wrote:
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...

Hello Worthing.
Your advice is well articulated, informed and is already in hand.....

995912 wrote:
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...

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.

Here I've just found that it's been published online, the Echo newspaper article with a response by Hannides with regards to the speculation:
.
http://www.flickr.co
m/photos/jonlucas/51
62758274/

I note how he did not want to be directly quoted this time...
.
....insisted there was not favouritism or unfairness eh?!

SpittingFire wrote:

995912 wrote:
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...

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.

Don't forget the Press Complaints commission! How could I forget!

Pinetree wrote:

995912 wrote:
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...

Hello Worthing.
Your advice is well articulated, informed and is already in hand.....

Oh no wonder I sometimes feel lonely here then! That explains it!

I'm furious with this design on two counts, firstly it isn't one of the 6 chosen finalists and more importantly it extremely similar - if not an almost perfect copy of a design sent in by Colin Lee in 2007. It is a disgrace that this design has been selected it makes a mockery of holding a competition and I would ask the Foundation to look at the design submitted to the Echo by Colin Lee.

Remembrance Sunday.
Today my thoughts are with the people who acted on our behalf 75years ago, most of us will never measure up to their conduct.

Martin Witts