Letters: January 6, 2017

Anonymity is granted only at the discretion of the editor, who also reserves the right to edit letters.

Leave no wriggle room

THE rapidly unfolding debate about the future of Milton Road Baths (can’t quite get used to ‘Health Hydro’) sadly shows up the borough council in both a manipulative and spineless light.

Councillors are all aware that GLL took on Milton Road Baths with a five-year lease option, after which time they have the possibility to return any or all of the facilities gifted to them by the borough council. (There is the question of the £2 million or so dowry for outstanding maintenance and how much of that is due to the small baths for example, but let’s leave that argument for a moment).

GLL is not a property developer. They are alleged to be a ‘not for profit’ social enterprise (what this seems to mean is that all potential profit is distributed internally in costs, salaries, benefits or bonuses before the final accounts are drawn up). For this they receive reductions in council tax and VAT unavailable to their leisure competitors, arguably providing up to a 25% trading advantage, which is society saying this should mean something. The ‘social enterprise’ bit of the strapline calls for them to listen to and respect the populations that previously owned the gifted leisure facilities as well as heritage and historical factors, and that maximising income is not the only criteria.

It was clear at the time that GLL did not really want the Baths, but were required to take it as a package in addition to the Link, the Haydon Centre, Delta etc, centres where they thought they could operate profitably. The draft lease I saw specifically excluded running down or closing those bits of the ‘Package’ that were financially more challenging?

If Greenwich Leisure cannot propose a viable model to run this important facility, ie the large, the small and the Turkish baths, which it seems they cannot, then the expiry of the five-year lease option should see GLL return the baths. The borough council should then consult, in good faith, with heritage groups and other interested parties locally and nationally over its future.

Instead, if past performance is any indicator of the future, we are witnessing the emergence of a potential ‘stitch up’ between GLL, Forward Swindon and the Cabinet….despite David Renard’s somewhat ambiguous statement.

Ironically, this is the very same council that seeks to splash £25 million or so on a ludicrous building on Princes Street car park, arguing Swindon’s cultural heritage needs assembly, promotion, and presentation in a new, expensive home. This seems to me akin to buying new carpets and curtains on HP, without any money to fix the leaky roof.

I said spineless … Not content with one layer of “removal” via GLL, they also will rely on Forward Swindon as another body who will so say dispassionately weigh up alternatives. Forward Swindon are of course a discredited company wholly owned by the borough council, and will do the council bidding at every stage.

It is not only about the external façade; internally the baths boast Victorian architectural features which are of outstanding quality and unique importance.

I have no idea whether there is a plan which will protect the building, externally and internally into the future, but a so called study ending in ‘turn it into flats’ is as baleful as it is simplistic.

This is a flagrant abrogation of our council’s duty to protect and enhance what small part of this town’s built heritage is still standing via a contrived and engineered smokescreen to pretend these people you vote in, can have no influence or role in the matter.

Our town should really not let them wriggle off this particular hook.

JOHN STOOKE

Haydon End

Swindon

....

Forum for debate

I HAVE read the debate in the SA letters page between Pete Smith and Bill Williams.

In Bill’s letter of December 24th “Opinions are Informed” he accuses Pete of a personal insult against him. I wonder if Bill could expand on this. Bill, in the past has accused myself and my brother Martin of upsetting his family during an exchange of letters in the SA. I wonder if Bill, who is a proud supporter of UKIP, ever thinks if he is insulting/upsetting people with his views in the letters page.

On a lighter note, in Bill’s same letter it was good to see him mention the Morning Star, a paper that myself and Martin have read and still do to this day since the 1980s. A paper I’m sure Bill tends not to read too often and a paper he wouldn’t be seen reading in his local. I suspect there’s more chance of Bill winning the lottery jackpot.

Keep your letters coming Bill in 2017, I don’t agree with your views but it starts debate in the SA like most letters do. don’t take it too personally Bill, those who oppose your views, it ruins a good debate.

Finally may I and on behalf of Martin wish both Pete and Bill and readers of Swindon Advertiser a happy new year.

MARK WEBB

Old Town

Swindon

....

A wonderful place

AS regular customers of Rudi’s, I am sure I speak for many people in wishing Lyn and Paul Notton a well earned rest and peaceful retirement.

One of the last family run businesses in our ever depressing town centre, we can only hope that the new owners cement the same friendly and efficient run atmosphere my wife, myself, and many others have enjoyed over so many years.

The present staff are a credit to their employers; much like the staff over the years, some have remained friends to this day.

It’s a very unique place, and certainly our favourite waste of time.

Lyn, Paul and Sarah will always remain close to our hearts.

Thanks for looking after us over the years, as we enjoyed our leisure time with you.

Now go and enjoy yours!

ROBERT & SUE WEBB

Park North

Swindon

....

Royal fairy dust?

RE Supposition, not fact. (Des Morgan. Adver. 29/12/16)

Des Morgan brings a whole new meaning to the phrase ‘clutching at straws!’

He has ignored my line of argument: that the Queen is obviously following

a long tradition of so-called constitutional monarchs who meddle in politics.

And as we know Charles meddles in politics, confirming the fact that the centuries-old tradition still continues. According to Mr Morgan, however, this has ‘no relevance.’

For a so-called ‘political commentator’ to state that the Queen is not political beggars belief. To be engaged in public life and not to have political views would be a demonstration of fecklessness or plain stupidity.

You cannot be a responsible adult without having political views, whether you are a king or a carpenter.

In the 1960s the Queen’s biographer, Ronald Flamini, commented: “God knows she is supposed to be above politics, but everyone knows the queen gets politically involved.”

The tiny fraction of Charles’ “black spider memos” made public reveals that he has lobbied government ministers repeatedly over the years in support of his political causes.

The same Charles who lobbied PM Blair with a six page letter about foot and mouth and the latter remarked pointedly that Charles had not complained when 6,000 jobs had been lost at Corus steel works.

Joan Smith’s ‘Down with the Royals’ is based on supposition says Mr Morgan. Really?

It seems what Des does not wish to hear, he simply sprinkles royal fairy dust on the ‘facts’ and they conveniently disintegrate to ‘suppositions.’

If Mr Morgan cannot tolerate the Guardian journalist facts regarding the Queen’s meddling in politics, I suggest he reads Paxman’s ‘On Royalty’ which reaches the same conclusion, with many examples. I suspect, however, Mr Morgan will predictably sprinkle yet more royal fairy dust over Paxman’s ‘facts’, downgrading them also because the facts don’t suit Des’ simplistic idea of monarchy.

Apparently psychiatrists’ consulting rooms see a steady procession of people who imagine they have been in conversation with, or been visited by the Queen, is Des Morgan one?

Still, at least he has stopped sprouting on about how the ‘royals bring stability’ to the country!

Re Buckingham Palace. The proposition has never been tested in the courts, but it is hard to believe that the royal family could not make a claim to legal ownership. Apparently there is a good case for a de jure argument that would see them in eventual ownership of Buckingham Palace.

Can you imagine the bailiffs at their front door?

The monarchy costs more than 100 times the current popular Irish President.

Finally, a Mirror poll asks: is the monarchy value for money? Results? Yes-43%. No-57%. Just a snap poll nothing fancy but encouraging!

Someone pass Des the smelling salts, please.

JEFF ADAMS

Bloomsbury

Swindon