An artcle in this weeks NWN puzzled me a little. It seems that Garry Poulson who has worked very hard for Newbury as Chairman of the Newbury Society for the last two and-a-half years feels that he needs to resign his position because he has spoken out against the Pavilion. Why is that I hear you ask, surely it is within the remit of the Newbury Society to support or oppose proposals which affect Newbury. As far as I know, they have no axe to grind other that they want to look after the best interests of our town.

Well, the answer to that question is that Garry is a director of The Volunteer Centre West Berkshire and that he gets financial support for his organisation from two of the groups that are hell bent on having a Pavilion in the park. WBC and Greenham Common Trust and he is afraid that if he doesn't toe the line he may put his financial support for the Volunteer Centre at risk. The only option open to him is that he feels he must resign and this decision is based on his experience with presumably those two financial supporters.

This is a disgrace and I have no doubt that Garry has had a gypsy's warning. That a man with over and above  commitment to the town and other important charitable organisations should be forced to take this action leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. For those of you that know Garry you must know that this is not a course he would have taken lightly. I hope there will be enough public support for him to perhaps reverse this decision and that a commitment be made by WBC and GCT not to penalise his other charities.

Quoted from brian

... That a man with over and above  commitment to the town and other important charitable organisations should be forced to take this action leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.

Yes quite sickening and a very unpleasant corner for Gary to have been pushed into.

Yes, I read that today as well.  To be fair, the story deserves a bigger profile than it does.

I presume West Berkshire Council and The New Greenham Trust will soon be issuing statements to the effect that his charities will not be compromised by his feelings on the pavilion development.  If not, they bloody well should in my view.

Although Gary was not born in Newbury (Stoke-on-Trent I think), he has devoted his time to the well being and good fortune of Newbury.  For him to feel he must stand down is very regrettable, especially under the circumstances.  I regard him as Mr Newbury and has more soul for Newbury than many of the out-of-towners who are currently desperate to indelibly stamp there vanity all over the town.

A carefully timed political move by the "Save Victoria Park Newbury from development" group, perhaps.

Quoted from user23.3

A carefully timed political move by the "Save Victoria Park Newbury from development" group, perhaps.

I've been rumbled.

To give up two and a half years work for a minor facebook entry. Yea right.

Quoted from user23.3

A carefully timed political move by the "Save Victoria Park Newbury from development" group, perhaps.

Unlikely - more likely the "tunnel vision" for Newbury ploughing its way through any opposition!

Quoted from user23.3

A carefully timed political move by the "Save Victoria Park Newbury from development" group, perhaps.

Garry has been worried about his situation for a while - reason enough for any condemnation of those pushing him into this corner.  That he has announced this so publically is at least some payback.

He has been a great chairman of the Newbury Society, and I hope he will be able to return to the role in the future - if only when retirement releases him from financial dependence on the 'powers that be' that the Newbury Society have to be free to criticise.

This sort of thing is so disappointing (I'm restraining myself there) and I feel like I've witnessed similar on several occasions.  People not being able to say or do what they believe in for fear of repercussions.

I think any respect left for the council would be lost if they pulled funding on such an important community cause just because someone went against the grain.

Quoted from 133

This sort of thing is so disappointing (I'm restraining myself there) and I feel like I've witnessed similar on several occasions.  People not being able to say or do what they believe in for fear of repercussions.

I think any respect left for the council would be lost if they pulled funding on such an important community cause just because someone went against the grain.

When have they done this before?

Quoted from user23.3

When have they done this before?

You're getting paranoid now. If, by 'they' you mean the council, your interpretation is a bit askew. There's no meat on this bone for you to gnaw on, sorry.

Quoted from user23.3

When have they done this before?

FF only said she had seen similar before - not that it happened in Newbury.

Quoted from 133

I think any respect left for the council would be lost if they pulled funding on such an important community cause just because someone went against the grain.

Gary must have believed and I am sure with good cause, that this might have been exactly what they would have done but it would have been hidden as a cost saving required by the current financial situation. Something like blaming the Communitiy Services for their, (WBC) potential million pound overspend. I would hope that perhaps this might be a catalyst to cause our elected councillors to take time out from their interminable party political  bickering and have a good hard look at the way the unelected council is running its business.
While they are at it, they might ask some questions of the Greenham Common Trust who are becoming just a bit too big for their boots. They have been put there to run an asset which belongs to the community and as they are non profit making, hand over the money without strings. They are not doing us the big favour they like to think they are.

Quoted from blackdog

FF only said she had seen similar before - not that it happened in Newbury.

I was just asking if there's any history of this happening.

I don't think that funding would be pulled - more that Garry's involvement would be a influencing factor when grant applications were processed.  If two competing cases for funding were being considered and they were of similar merit his involvement might influence one or two of the decision makers to vote for the competition.

I suspect he also felt that he was being blamed for the Newbury Society's opposition to the pavilion as if he was the only member who was against it (so they could dismiss the Society's opposition as that of one man). Mike James' letter in this week's NWN should help dispel that idea.

I note on Monday that the Pavilion Taliban are taking a youth officer of some description to the meeting; no doubt to lay it on thick that this is an essential utility for the good of the youth (who have nothing to do), who otherwise get up to mischief.  Like anyone who otherwise would get up to mischief, are likely to use the cybercafe, art studio or sound studio,etc...

It could be said that Garry Poulson is grandstanding, but I applaud him for standing by his principles.

In my view, this isn't just about the pavilion in the park.  I'm sure it is also about how these 'quango' like organisations go about their business.

Quoted from user23.3

I was just asking if there's any history of this happening.

But you asked if 'they had done this before'.  Clearly you were referring to the council and attempting to mute FF; knowing she wouldn't divulge if she did know - thus trying to throw into doubt the legitimacy of her claim.