Tuesday, March 27, 2007

LIB DEMS WOULD RATHER HAVE A 'PUB' THAN FOOTBALL PARKS

Paisley East and Ralston blog has an interesting article on the current situation with the Liberal Democrats and St Mirren over the Penilee pavilion, worth a look (I would say that being one of the candidates!) I have digested the post here...


The Lib-Dem councillor for Ralston would rather see what amounts to a pub being built at Penilee Playing Fields instead of a football academy for youngsters and a training facility for St Mirren. Jim Sharkey, who is secretary of Ralston Community Council and whose house looks on to the playing fields was speaking after he attended a public meeting called by Lib-Dem Councillor Nan Macgregor who opposes plans to redevelop the derelict playing fields and pavilion.


Mr Sharkey, who will be one of two Labour candidates in Ralston and Paisley East in the council elections in May, said:


"Councillor MacGregor told the public meeting she would rather the playing fields be given over to a local rugby club who had previously proposed building a licensed clubhouse beside the pitches and licensed premises is something the vast majority of people in Ralston don’t want to see there."I have been knocking on doors and the message I have been getting is that people just want something positive to happen to the Penilee Playing Fields as the place has been derelict for years. This is exactly what is being proposed."

11 comments:

disgruntled Paisley Buddie said...

Perhaps you can explain to your constituents what has happened to the money from the sell off of Millarston & Seedhhll which was originally planned for the development of Seedhill & Penilee? Why the St Mirren Deal was all last minute, Why the schools & community/sports clubs were not consulted when they wanted to be part of this development as had up until a few weeks ago been the case. Even the Spring Council newsletter says the grass pitches will be for school & community use! Why Labour are using this as a political football NOT the SNP & Lib Dems. As far as I can see SNP and Lib Dems only want the people of Renfrewshire to know the truth.They are not tying to stop the project , merely to ensure it is developed properly. Perhaps if you had attended the meeting at Ralston Primary last night you would have heard how people feel and could have made a better job of allaying fears than Mr Sharkey did.

Rayleen Kelly said...

Digruntled: I have broken from my usual rule here of not responding to those who refuse to identify themselves. I will address your points.

1. Cllr MacGregor organised this as a rally to launch the Liberal Democrat candidate for this ward, there was no other reason.

2. Please see the reports that have been tabled for the Community and Family Care policy board on this subject since Feb 2005 the money is all there in the most recent report.

3. There seems to be a question somewhere in there about the Labour Party and using it as a political football? not sure if this is what you meant to ask you may want ot revisit this. The Labour administration of Renfrewshire Council are trying to get the Penilee pavilion back in use, for all of Renfrewshire's sporting community and that includes Ralston and the East End.

4. If, as you say the Lib Dems only wanted people to know the truth they would have put the TRUTH into their 'focus' as they didn't this is clearly not the case.

5. They ARE trying to stop the project, having attended the meeting where their amendment was tabled (Community and Family Care March 07), the SNP supported them in part at this meeting and in the planning meeting where the plans were agreed - it was an SNP Councillor who seconded the motion.

6. You are correct in that I did not attend the meeting last night, Jim Sharkey who in addition to being one of the Labour candidates is also a resident of the area (plus his house backs onto the park) did attend. He tells me that a motion which he tabled to welcome the deal was not taken.
The fears you speak of have been manufactured by the Lib Dems trying to save face in an election campaign, it is that simple and I am sorry if you do not agree, you are welcome to your opinion, but I doubt you will find many REAL BUDDIES sharing it! Check out the local press if you don't believe me!

RightForScotland said...

Rayleen,

As a councillor you must be aware of the difference between a public house and a private members club? If so then please stop misleading people with this post title. If not then please find out.

It is also interesting to note that the ralston residents have done a 180 as previous surveys carried out (rugby v football) showed a majority for the former.

I think this shows that the issue is not as popular as the labour group had hoped

Rayleen Kelly said...

RFS: Firstly I am not misleading anyone, that is your job not mine!

Secondly your polling may be finding that but, the support for something positive happening with the Penilee playing fields is strong in the area.

On a side issue still in this vein, elsewhere on the net you continue to suggest that I have 'organised' opposition to the Rugby clubs proposal. For your information I only became the Councillor in 2003, and I believe the proposals were lodged and refused in 2001, WELL before I became a Councillor. You suggested that I prompted or said to a local that they would have no where to walk their dog if this proposal went through, yet again this is not the case I have NEVER said this.

In your latest comment you suggest that I am the Councillor for the Paisley Rugby club and that you invited me to a match, both are incorrect, I would now appreicate it if on my blog and on your own, you printed a full retraction and apology.

I have seen you challenge others on the veracity of their statements, I only hope you hold yourself up to the same standard.

RightForScotland said...

Thank you for correcting me. I have reviewed notes I made during various meetings and I can see why I transposed you for Lawson. I was wrong and I will note that on your Dad's site as well.

I never said that a councillor told a resident to make that complaint. I simply said that a resident made the complaint to the planning application to highlight the fact the locals do not understand that the club owns that land and that they should not let their animals foul it for health reasons.

However the point I made about the pub stands. The title of your post is wrong, at no point did the club propose to build a building that would then be licenced as a public house.

Rayleen Kelly said...

RFS: Your apology although not quite an apology is as good as I am going to get from you I suppose?

As someone who holds other to such a high standard in terms of fact checking you have proven yourself to be more than a little hypocritical, given that this is not a difficult fact to check! I have never had ANY dealings with the Rugby club and no one (excepting yourself through this forum) has EVER contacted me about it!

As a spokesperson (either self appointed or appointed) for the Rugby club you do not do them any favours, by mixing up elected members and making statements that are not true.

As for the title of the post it is taken from the post on the Paisley East and Ralston blog the campaign site for myself and Jim Sharkey, and I stand by the post, if you read the post it did outline that the premises suggested by the other organisation would be licensed, is this not the case?

RightForScotland said...

"is this not the case? "

What that it was to be a pub? No it was not to be a pub. Yes it was to be licensed but there is a world of difference between a pub and a private members club both in terms of how it operates and indeed in the eyes of the law.

And if my getting two councillors mixed up does their cause no good then how does your dad saying that the club wanted to buy the land and you claiming it was going to house a pub strengthen the Council?

I think that what you will find is that I did not fact-check, I made a mistake, I admitted that I was wrong and I apologised for that error when pointed out. I have made errors in the past and I have apologised for each one of them. Ask your dad about my flat tax spreadsheet, that was a right bugger for me.

Compare and contrast to the dogmatic approach that you and your colleagues on the council have. Did your dad apologise over the impeachment mistake he made?

What I hold people to is justification. If you make a statement you must be prepared to justify it with links to sources or to retract it. I could not justify my remark about you so I have withdrawn it. You have been unable to justify the comment about the pub yet you refuse to withdraw it. Interesting.

Rayleen Kelly said...

RFS: I refuse to withdraw it because it is the truth, you have confirmed it would be liscensed it would sell alcohol, regardless of who gets let in, to the local people they would still have to put up with the type of anti social behaviour this type of venture can create, don't get me wrong I have no issue with the Rugby club or their project, from what I know of the project I would have no issue with it, but I am not sure Penilee is the right place for it.

I would have thought that someone who is involved with sport would have welcomed the training academy with St Mirren, are you against it?

Stuart said...

Rayleen,

I am a member of Ralston Bowling Club and have several friends who are members of Ralston Golf Club.

Are you and Mr Sharkey insinuating that these establishments are "Pubs" because they have a licence.

It would appear by inference that you do not agree with these establishments being in residential areas.

There is a fairly large membership among both of these clubs.

Calling these premises "pubs" is an insult.

Rayleen Kelly said...

Stuart: Glad to see you are getting into the hang of this blogging lark, hope you will soon put up your views to scrutiny. On your points re my colleague I do not publish possibly libelous comments and as such they will remain unpublished.

On your second point with regard to 'pubs' as opposed to private members clubs, I have no problem with bowling clubs, or in fact rugby clubs being in residential areas, I am simply pointing out that there would be opposition to this no doubt from the local community given that the proposals at present do not involve an alcohol license.

Are you suggesting that you would prefer a private members club to the present proposal?

Rayleen Kelly said...

Stuart: You will notice that I have not printed your latest offering, and can confirm that any more postings with similar content will similarly not be printed but saved anyway.

I am not and have not threatened you with legal action, I also do not need to veil anything if I am going to say something I just say it so I hope that is straight.

I cannot help but think that you are trying to be mischeivious here in fact from the comments so far it is obvious, as this is an old posting I now consider this conversation closed an NO FURTHER COMMENTS will be published on this thread, thanks again for visiting and come back again.

WEB DISCLAIMER

Please note all postings on this blog are of a personal nature and do not reflect the opinions of either Renfrewshire Council, the Scottish Labour Party or Renfrewshire Labour Group. NB No annonymous comments will be published on this blog if you have something to say have the courage to identify yourself.