Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Plans to close Maryon Wilson Animal Park in Charlton
Comments
-
You're not being entirely transparent there. There are two roles (1 full time, 1 x part time) and the money was for fixed term contracts of nearly 2 years. Yes, I'm sad enough to look it up. They'd hardly be highly paid advisors in Westminster circles on those salaries.Hal1x said:
so why the £85k Political Advisor spend then? Community and local benefit or reinforcing dogma and petty political bollocks.Clem_Snide said:Sadly all local authorities are in a similar position and having to make decisions of this nature. The cost of living crisis has had an unprecedented impact on local authority budgets and many have burnt through their reserves and are on the brink of bankruptcy.
There are statutory services which have to be provided and quite frankly local authorities cannot afford to deliver them.
Comments like "it only saves them £70k" are ridiculous. The situation is so bad that literally every penny counts.
Rest assured no one at Greenwich will want the Park to close and there will no doubt be a hope that the story leaking out will attract private funding or assistance.
And it was in response to a LGA peer review, that recommended the political groups making up the administration and opposition needed some additional admin and research support.
I'll confess, I don't know whether or not having these roles makes the running of the authority more or less efficient. Nor how their role intercepts with the existing democratic services roles (I suspect they are able to give more partial advice though).
But if it means those taking decisions are better informed about central government policies, upcoming political threats, incoming laws, funding opportunities available, etc. I'd say there's a chance that money spent on ensuring a fully informed decision is not necessary a bad thing.
And these roles, or the diversity officers or the Pride liaison officers, that the right wing press has convinced so many members of the public councils are chockablock with, are most definitely not the reason local authorities are having to take decisions like this one on the park.13 -
I was being totally transparent, I cannot see how these roles benefit the local electorate more than a public amenity. If the council say they can no longer fund this amenity then all expenditure should be scrutinised.
If the local authority didn't fill these tasks how much would it be to the detriment of the general public. If they have a shortfall in funding all non essential expenditure should be considered alongside each other, and at least 5000 people seem to want to retain a longstanding public amenity, I cant see them signing a petition for additional burocracy can you?
Either way it doesn't strike me as a popular vote winner, they can say its down to government cut backs, but the general ignorati like me will still question other "dubious" expenditure.
You aren't employed by a council or in a civil service role by any chance are you?8 -
I guess it must be correct but I would not have thought to describe any of those as ‘domestic’ 🤷clive said:
There are now 93 animals in the park, including eight deer, five sheep, four goats and two pigs.Arsenetatters said:What animals do they have in there now? I remember deer.- The park is home to domestic animals like chickens, geese, horses and ducks
0 -
I supposed they are domesticated as opposed to Wild like yer Tigers, Lions, Gorillas and squirrels etc.valleynick66 said:
I guess it must be correct but I would not have thought to describe any of those as ‘domestic’ 🤷clive said:
There are now 93 animals in the park, including eight deer, five sheep, four goats and two pigs.Arsenetatters said:What animals do they have in there now? I remember deer.- The park is home to domestic animals like chickens, geese, horses and ducks
2 -
Love that you have bracketed squirrels in with that group 😆Hal1x said:
I supposed they are domesticated rather than wild like yer Tigers, Lions, Gorillas and squirrels.valleynick66 said:
I guess it must be correct but I would not have thought to describe any of those as ‘domestic’ 🤷clive said:
There are now 93 animals in the park, including eight deer, five sheep, four goats and two pigs.Arsenetatters said:What animals do they have in there now? I remember deer.- The park is home to domestic animals like chickens, geese, horses and ducks
3 -
well they are bound to have Squirrels in the park but they haven't been included in the zoo contents.valleynick66 said:
Live that you have bracketed squirrels in with that group 😆Hal1x said:
I supposed they are domesticated rather than wild like yer Tigers, Lions, Gorillas and squirrels.valleynick66 said:
I guess it must be correct but I would not have thought to describe any of those as ‘domestic’ 🤷clive said:
There are now 93 animals in the park, including eight deer, five sheep, four goats and two pigs.Arsenetatters said:What animals do they have in there now? I remember deer.- The park is home to domestic animals like chickens, geese, horses and ducks
1 -
Do any of them look nothing like Toyah Wilcox? 🐓 🤷🏻♂️😉clive said:
There are now 93 animals in the park, including eight deer, five sheep, four goats and two pigs.Arsenetatters said:What animals do they have in there now? I remember deer.- The park is home to domestic animals like chickens, geese, horses and ducks
5 -
Still take my Grandchildren there in the Summer holidays, and the three year olds love the place. What with the parking restrictions in and around Greenwich park, let alone the closed roads, the loss of the deer in Greenwich Park, this joyless council seems to want to curtail any use of parks and open spaces ?. I guess they will be banning kicking football about in the parks next, in case someone gets hit by a ball next?4
-
Signed - up to 5,1222
-
Noob? That's what my 11 year old nephew constantly calls me. Didn't realise he was calling me the goat. I assumed it was offensive.KBslittlesis said:
Awww they’re Noobs, just like mine. Gorgeous 🥰sam3110 said:Went up there with the dogs this morning. The goats seem to be oblivious to their impending doom
2 - Sponsored links:
-
2 -
Gotta get that right wing dig in 🙄Bournemouth Addick said:
You're not being entirely transparent there. There are two roles (1 full time, 1 x part time) and the money was for fixed term contracts of nearly 2 years. Yes, I'm sad enough to look it up. They'd hardly be highly paid advisors in Westminster circles on those salaries.Hal1x said:
so why the £85k Political Advisor spend then? Community and local benefit or reinforcing dogma and petty political bollocks.Clem_Snide said:Sadly all local authorities are in a similar position and having to make decisions of this nature. The cost of living crisis has had an unprecedented impact on local authority budgets and many have burnt through their reserves and are on the brink of bankruptcy.
There are statutory services which have to be provided and quite frankly local authorities cannot afford to deliver them.
Comments like "it only saves them £70k" are ridiculous. The situation is so bad that literally every penny counts.
Rest assured no one at Greenwich will want the Park to close and there will no doubt be a hope that the story leaking out will attract private funding or assistance.
And it was in response to a LGA peer review, that recommended the political groups making up the administration and opposition needed some additional admin and research support.
I'll confess, I don't know whether or not having these roles makes the running of the authority more or less efficient. Nor how their role intercepts with the existing democratic services roles (I suspect they are able to give more partial advice though).
But if it means those taking decisions are better informed about central government policies, upcoming political threats, incoming laws, funding opportunities available, etc. I'd say there's a chance that money spent on ensuring a fully informed decision is not necessary a bad thing.
And these roles, or the diversity officers or the Pride liaison officers, that the right wing press has convinced so many members of the public councils are chockablock with, are most definitely not the reason local authorities are having to take decisions like this one on the park.
4 -
At least he didn’t say far right tho. Progress.ValleyGary said:
Gotta get that right wing dig in 🙄Bournemouth Addick said:
You're not being entirely transparent there. There are two roles (1 full time, 1 x part time) and the money was for fixed term contracts of nearly 2 years. Yes, I'm sad enough to look it up. They'd hardly be highly paid advisors in Westminster circles on those salaries.Hal1x said:
so why the £85k Political Advisor spend then? Community and local benefit or reinforcing dogma and petty political bollocks.Clem_Snide said:Sadly all local authorities are in a similar position and having to make decisions of this nature. The cost of living crisis has had an unprecedented impact on local authority budgets and many have burnt through their reserves and are on the brink of bankruptcy.
There are statutory services which have to be provided and quite frankly local authorities cannot afford to deliver them.
Comments like "it only saves them £70k" are ridiculous. The situation is so bad that literally every penny counts.
Rest assured no one at Greenwich will want the Park to close and there will no doubt be a hope that the story leaking out will attract private funding or assistance.
And it was in response to a LGA peer review, that recommended the political groups making up the administration and opposition needed some additional admin and research support.
I'll confess, I don't know whether or not having these roles makes the running of the authority more or less efficient. Nor how their role intercepts with the existing democratic services roles (I suspect they are able to give more partial advice though).
But if it means those taking decisions are better informed about central government policies, upcoming political threats, incoming laws, funding opportunities available, etc. I'd say there's a chance that money spent on ensuring a fully informed decision is not necessary a bad thing.
And these roles, or the diversity officers or the Pride liaison officers, that the right wing press has convinced so many members of the public councils are chockablock with, are most definitely not the reason local authorities are having to take decisions like this one on the park.3 -
I remember my friend taking me there. It's quite cool and super unexpected. Would be sad if it closed down as I'm sure it's popular with kids (and adults who dig animals like me)0
-
saving only 70k per year but spending hundreds of thousands relaying perfectly good block paving in Powis Street and then racing council tax by maximum allowed. Wankers.3
-
Haven't you hit the nail on the head there though?Hal1x said:I was being totally transparent, I cannot see how these roles benefit the local electorate more than a public amenity. If the council say they can no longer fund this amenity then all expenditure should be scrutinised.
If the local authority didn't fill these tasks how much would it be to the detriment of the general public. If they have a shortfall in funding all non essential expenditure should be considered alongside each other, and at least 5000 people seem to want to retain a longstanding public amenity, I cant see them signing a petition for additional burocracy can you?
Either way it doesn't strike me as a popular vote winner, they can say its down to government cut backs, but the general ignorati like me will still question other "dubious" expenditure.
You aren't employed by a council or in a civil service role by any chance are you?
Do you honestly think there's an elected official out there mulling over these decisions > "We could cut funding for that petting zoo/paddling pool/OAP day centre/whatever. That'll win us loads of votes! Plus it'll free up money for those Gay Traveller Support Officers we need. Win win!"
They're making these (awful) decisions because they flipping have to. Not because the Town Hall corridors are alive with the clicking heels of hoards of Trans' Inclusion Officers.
Anyway, that's it for me on the thread. FWIW I hope that they find the funding from somewhere and what's obviously a much loved amenity can continue.
4 -
more likely they thought we wouldnt notice or be bothered to make a fuss about it. Why are you defending it so much, and I noticed you didnt answer my question about your own role.Bournemouth Addick said:
Haven't you hit the nail on the head there though?Hal1x said:I was being totally transparent, I cannot see how these roles benefit the local electorate more than a public amenity. If the council say they can no longer fund this amenity then all expenditure should be scrutinised.
If the local authority didn't fill these tasks how much would it be to the detriment of the general public. If they have a shortfall in funding all non essential expenditure should be considered alongside each other, and at least 5000 people seem to want to retain a longstanding public amenity, I cant see them signing a petition for additional burocracy can you?
Either way it doesn't strike me as a popular vote winner, they can say its down to government cut backs, but the general ignorati like me will still question other "dubious" expenditure.
You aren't employed by a council or in a civil service role by any chance are you?
Do you honestly think there's an elected official out there mulling over these decisions > "We could cut funding for that petting zoo/paddling pool/OAP day centre/whatever. That'll win us loads of votes! Plus it'll free up money for those Gay Traveller Support Officers we need. Win win!"
They're making these (awful) decisions because they flipping have to. Not because the Town Hall corridors are alive with the clicking heels of hoards of Trans' Inclusion Officers.
Anyway, that's it for me on the thread. FWIW I hope that they find the funding from somewhere and what's obviously a much loved amenity can continue.
4 -
Powis Street was paid for by a £25m grant from the Office for Levelling Up. A grant which has to be spent on High Street regeneration.Valleyfan2 said:saving only 70k per year but spending hundreds of thousands relaying perfectly good block paving in Powis Street and then racing council tax by maximum allowed. Wankers.
But don't let actual facts get in the way of a ill informed rant eh....
As for the Council Tax rise, how else do you suggest the authority make the money it has been told it has to by Central Government?
Most have already sold any assets they hold and used all of their reserves. In the last year Nottingham City, Birmingham City, Croydon, Newham, Havering and Enfield have been on the brink of collapse and just today Lambeth have requested 40m to bail them out next year. It is expected that 19 Councils will issue section 114 Notices in the next financial year - effectively declaring themselves bankrupt.
This is not a Greenwich problem it's a national problem. The fact that Greenwich developed a medium term financial strategy and took a number of very unpopular decisions (not things they wanted to do) means they are relatively secure at present.
Budgets have been cut consistently over the last 10 years, to the point that Chief Execs across the country are being forced to make these decisions.
If people on here actual knew the amount of money Local Authorities are having to find to fund the demand for temp accommodation for example you would be gob smacked. The bills are rocketing in the social care space as well all the while Central Government demand more for less.9 -
Your nephew calls you a Noob? Lol, it’s short for Nubian. The goat is an anglo nubian.O-Randy-Hunt said:
Noob? That's what my 11 year old nephew constantly calls me. Didn't realise he was calling me the goat. I assumed it was offensive.KBslittlesis said:
Awww they’re Noobs, just like mine. Gorgeous 🥰sam3110 said:Went up there with the dogs this morning. The goats seem to be oblivious to their impending doom0 - Sponsored links:
-
ValleyGary said:Now you can’t park within 80 miles of the valley, I walk through the park every home game. Be absolutely gutted to see it go. Why’s everyone involved in councils always total and utter wankers?ValleyGary said:
Gotta get that right wing dig in 🙄Bournemouth Addick said:
You're not being entirely transparent there. There are two roles (1 full time, 1 x part time) and the money was for fixed term contracts of nearly 2 years. Yes, I'm sad enough to look it up. They'd hardly be highly paid advisors in Westminster circles on those salaries.Hal1x said:
so why the £85k Political Advisor spend then? Community and local benefit or reinforcing dogma and petty political bollocks.Clem_Snide said:Sadly all local authorities are in a similar position and having to make decisions of this nature. The cost of living crisis has had an unprecedented impact on local authority budgets and many have burnt through their reserves and are on the brink of bankruptcy.
There are statutory services which have to be provided and quite frankly local authorities cannot afford to deliver them.
Comments like "it only saves them £70k" are ridiculous. The situation is so bad that literally every penny counts.
Rest assured no one at Greenwich will want the Park to close and there will no doubt be a hope that the story leaking out will attract private funding or assistance.
And it was in response to a LGA peer review, that recommended the political groups making up the administration and opposition needed some additional admin and research support.
I'll confess, I don't know whether or not having these roles makes the running of the authority more or less efficient. Nor how their role intercepts with the existing democratic services roles (I suspect they are able to give more partial advice though).
But if it means those taking decisions are better informed about central government policies, upcoming political threats, incoming laws, funding opportunities available, etc. I'd say there's a chance that money spent on ensuring a fully informed decision is not necessary a bad thing.
And these roles, or the diversity officers or the Pride liaison officers, that the right wing press has convinced so many members of the public councils are chockablock with, are most definitely not the reason local authorities are having to take decisions like this one on the park.
Wow, what could have possibly caused such a Damascene change in relation to having digs?
3 -
‘Everyone’.Stig said:ValleyGary said:Now you can’t park within 80 miles of the valley, I walk through the park every home game. Be absolutely gutted to see it go. Why’s everyone involved in councils always total and utter wankers?ValleyGary said:
Gotta get that right wing dig in 🙄Bournemouth Addick said:
You're not being entirely transparent there. There are two roles (1 full time, 1 x part time) and the money was for fixed term contracts of nearly 2 years. Yes, I'm sad enough to look it up. They'd hardly be highly paid advisors in Westminster circles on those salaries.Hal1x said:
so why the £85k Political Advisor spend then? Community and local benefit or reinforcing dogma and petty political bollocks.Clem_Snide said:Sadly all local authorities are in a similar position and having to make decisions of this nature. The cost of living crisis has had an unprecedented impact on local authority budgets and many have burnt through their reserves and are on the brink of bankruptcy.
There are statutory services which have to be provided and quite frankly local authorities cannot afford to deliver them.
Comments like "it only saves them £70k" are ridiculous. The situation is so bad that literally every penny counts.
Rest assured no one at Greenwich will want the Park to close and there will no doubt be a hope that the story leaking out will attract private funding or assistance.
And it was in response to a LGA peer review, that recommended the political groups making up the administration and opposition needed some additional admin and research support.
I'll confess, I don't know whether or not having these roles makes the running of the authority more or less efficient. Nor how their role intercepts with the existing democratic services roles (I suspect they are able to give more partial advice though).
But if it means those taking decisions are better informed about central government policies, upcoming political threats, incoming laws, funding opportunities available, etc. I'd say there's a chance that money spent on ensuring a fully informed decision is not necessary a bad thing.
And these roles, or the diversity officers or the Pride liaison officers, that the right wing press has convinced so many members of the public councils are chockablock with, are most definitely not the reason local authorities are having to take decisions like this one on the park.
Wow, what could have possibly caused such a Damascene change in relation to having digs?
I don’t take sides, I despise them all equally.0 -
JeezValleyGary said:
‘Everyone’.Stig said:ValleyGary said:Now you can’t park within 80 miles of the valley, I walk through the park every home game. Be absolutely gutted to see it go. Why’s everyone involved in councils always total and utter wankers?ValleyGary said:
Gotta get that right wing dig in 🙄Bournemouth Addick said:
You're not being entirely transparent there. There are two roles (1 full time, 1 x part time) and the money was for fixed term contracts of nearly 2 years. Yes, I'm sad enough to look it up. They'd hardly be highly paid advisors in Westminster circles on those salaries.Hal1x said:
so why the £85k Political Advisor spend then? Community and local benefit or reinforcing dogma and petty political bollocks.Clem_Snide said:Sadly all local authorities are in a similar position and having to make decisions of this nature. The cost of living crisis has had an unprecedented impact on local authority budgets and many have burnt through their reserves and are on the brink of bankruptcy.
There are statutory services which have to be provided and quite frankly local authorities cannot afford to deliver them.
Comments like "it only saves them £70k" are ridiculous. The situation is so bad that literally every penny counts.
Rest assured no one at Greenwich will want the Park to close and there will no doubt be a hope that the story leaking out will attract private funding or assistance.
And it was in response to a LGA peer review, that recommended the political groups making up the administration and opposition needed some additional admin and research support.
I'll confess, I don't know whether or not having these roles makes the running of the authority more or less efficient. Nor how their role intercepts with the existing democratic services roles (I suspect they are able to give more partial advice though).
But if it means those taking decisions are better informed about central government policies, upcoming political threats, incoming laws, funding opportunities available, etc. I'd say there's a chance that money spent on ensuring a fully informed decision is not necessary a bad thing.
And these roles, or the diversity officers or the Pride liaison officers, that the right wing press has convinced so many members of the public councils are chockablock with, are most definitely not the reason local authorities are having to take decisions like this one on the park.
Wow, what could have possibly caused such a Damascene change in relation to having digs?
I don’t take sides, I despise them all equally.0 -
Not massive savings https://greenwichwire.co.uk/2025/01/24/closing-maryon-wilson-animal-park-will-save-just-5000-greenwich-council/
I get the pain local councils are under, especially around adult social care, but also, and I say this as someone who knows people in the Labour Party in Greenwich, is, don't be so shit at the politics of these things0 -
nobody at RBG will admit it obviously but it won't be long before their well established preferred chinese owned property developer will be along with planning permission for some lucrative monstrosity on the site with a certain former senior local politician skulking aroundStig said:I haven't signed (yet), but I'm on the brink and think I could easily be persuaded. As a kid, I loved being taken to see the deer when we visited Charlton. Similarly I took my kids when they were young. I think it’s Important that young children get the opportunity to see, understand and appreciate animals.
I signed haven't yet because there's a few unknowns for me. 1. What are the council's motives? Is it, purely a money saving venture or are there other reasons? (I'm not on tiktok to see) 2. What will happen to the animals? How will they be impacted by the change? 3. Is the park of a suitable size to provide the animals it has with a genuinely fulfilling life?0 -
Please email your ward councillor to put pressure on the Greenwich Labour leadership to withdraw this terrible plan. Opposition councillors are all over this so hopefully this will get put in the bin if there’s enough opposition to it.
1 -
I've signed.
Only been once, but thought it was a bit of a hidden gem.
Not as well known as the animal parks/children's zoos in Mudchute, Crystal Palace, Horniman and Surrey Docks, which is a shame.
Yet another step in distancing us from nature.0 -
Lets keep it simple. These councils spaff the public's money on whatever takes their fancy. They are supposed to exist to provide the necessary services to the community that pays them. Instead of that they make themselves 'Rulers' - as if we don't have enough of them.Bournemouth Addick said:
You're not being entirely transparent there. There are two roles (1 full time, 1 x part time) and the money was for fixed term contracts of nearly 2 years. Yes, I'm sad enough to look it up. They'd hardly be highly paid advisors in Westminster circles on those salaries.Hal1x said:
so why the £85k Political Advisor spend then? Community and local benefit or reinforcing dogma and petty political bollocks.Clem_Snide said:Sadly all local authorities are in a similar position and having to make decisions of this nature. The cost of living crisis has had an unprecedented impact on local authority budgets and many have burnt through their reserves and are on the brink of bankruptcy.
There are statutory services which have to be provided and quite frankly local authorities cannot afford to deliver them.
Comments like "it only saves them £70k" are ridiculous. The situation is so bad that literally every penny counts.
Rest assured no one at Greenwich will want the Park to close and there will no doubt be a hope that the story leaking out will attract private funding or assistance.
And it was in response to a LGA peer review, that recommended the political groups making up the administration and opposition needed some additional admin and research support.
I'll confess, I don't know whether or not having these roles makes the running of the authority more or less efficient. Nor how their role intercepts with the existing democratic services roles (I suspect they are able to give more partial advice though).
But if it means those taking decisions are better informed about central government policies, upcoming political threats, incoming laws, funding opportunities available, etc. I'd say there's a chance that money spent on ensuring a fully informed decision is not necessary a bad thing.
And these roles, or the diversity officers or the Pride liaison officers, that the right wing press has convinced so many members of the public councils are chockablock with, are most definitely not the reason local authorities are having to take decisions like this one on the park.
They force their ideology through all these various virtue signalling 'Officers' and who is paying for their wages, benefits and pensions?
Basically they have lost the plot, forgotten their function and could not organise the proverbial 'p' up in a brewery.
Oh yes, and what the hell is 'right wing', exactly?6 -
Another thread that really has me wondering what the hell is going on in people's heads....
I'm glad of the opportunities for these insights... I think...
There seems to be some mass radicalisation going on in the UK7 -
Absolutely bang on.Clem_Snide said:
Powis Street was paid for by a £25m grant from the Office for Levelling Up. A grant which has to be spent on High Street regeneration.Valleyfan2 said:saving only 70k per year but spending hundreds of thousands relaying perfectly good block paving in Powis Street and then racing council tax by maximum allowed. Wankers.
But don't let actual facts get in the way of a ill informed rant eh....
As for the Council Tax rise, how else do you suggest the authority make the money it has been told it has to by Central Government?
Most have already sold any assets they hold and used all of their reserves. In the last year Nottingham City, Birmingham City, Croydon, Newham, Havering and Enfield have been on the brink of collapse and just today Lambeth have requested 40m to bail them out next year. It is expected that 19 Councils will issue section 114 Notices in the next financial year - effectively declaring themselves bankrupt.
This is not a Greenwich problem it's a national problem. The fact that Greenwich developed a medium term financial strategy and took a number of very unpopular decisions (not things they wanted to do) means they are relatively secure at present.
Budgets have been cut consistently over the last 10 years, to the point that Chief Execs across the country are being forced to make these decisions.
If people on here actual knew the amount of money Local Authorities are having to find to fund the demand for temp accommodation for example you would be gob smacked. The bills are rocketing in the social care space as well all the while Central Government demand more for less.
No one would want the animal park to close and I think it’s incredibly unfair to think otherwise, but I also believe that the knowledge and understanding of what is costing the council so much money is severely lacking. Greenwich council need to cut back on costs otherwise they’re going to be heading in the same way as the other local authorities and be bankrupt. And with the incredibly dense population and amount of people in hotels and other temporary accommodation that cost them huge amounts of money, it will be extremely detrimental to everyone as normal services just won’t be able to get done as they’d be no money for them.3
