Theatres under threat as Sutton Council consider huge culture cuts

Theatres under threat as Sutton Council consider huge culture cuts

Theatres under threat as Sutton Council consider huge culture cuts

First published in News
Last updated
This Is Local London: Photograph of the Author by , Assistant Editor

The cultural heart of the borough looks set to be torn out after the council published plans to close its two theatres and Wallington Hall and offer them up to developers.

Plans, published in papers prepared for the Environment and Neighbourhood Committee on September 4, reveal the council is considering closing The Charles Cryer Theatre and workshop in Carshalton, The Secombe Theatre, Sutton and Wallington Public Hall.

The two theatres will be offered to community groups or private enterprise to take-over, with a workshop in September planned to give details on how the transfer of ownership could be made, but council officers have stated a leasing of the buildings would not be possible, and a very robust business plan would need to be presented to prevent the venues being put onto the market for potential development.

Groups interested in trying to take over the two theatres have also been warned there will be no option of providing a discount or reduced cost to purchasing either venue, with both expected to be valued in the millions.

Should councillors agree the move Wallington Public Hall, which hosts numerous private functions, entertainment and community activities, would be placed on the market to be developed.

Other cultural assets such as Whitehall, Honeywood Museum and Little Holland House have been granted protection as buildings of historical importance.

Grove Hall has also been exempted due to its use as a nursery, but the Life Centre, a source of controversy since it opened, could be in the firing line.

The announcement is the first major proposal put forward as part of the Suttons Future campaign, as the council looks to cut £40m from its budget over the next five years.

From Tuesday, September 9, people can submit their views on the proposals via an online survey at www.suttonsfuture.org.

Councillor Colin Hall, deputy leader of the council, said: "The reality is the Secombe and Charles Cryer are used by a very small number of people - only about 22 per cent of the borough, use them, and it is quite heavily subsides. It is of course not something we want to do, but we have to look at making cuts that are fair on the whole community."

Coun Hall described Wallington Hall as exceptionally run down, adding: "We think the right thing to do is sell it off."

In the council paper it was stated the eight venues, of which at least three are under threat, cost the council £2.2m a year, but only generate £420,000 in revenue. This equates to a subsidy of £5.65 for every person who uses them.

Protection of the three historic houses is hoped to be made more manageable by the securing of heritage lottery fund money, with more than £1m in grants applied for at each site.

Leader of the opposition Tim Crowley said: "I am saddened to hear of the proposals of the council to withdraw it's funding for the Secombe and Charles cryer theatres, especially when the subsidy to the failing life centre is costing 3 times as much as that of the arts centres.

"It is also rich of Coun Hall to quote the figure of only 22 per cent of residents attending these venues. 

"Can I remind Cllr Hall that 22 per cent is 6 per cent more residents than gave the Lib Dems a mandate in Mays local elections."

Emily Brothers, the Labour Party parliamentary candidate for Sutton and Cheam, said: "Apparently other community facilities across the borough will be similarly affected, but unsurprisingly the Lib Dem vanity project with the Sutton Life Centre will be protected with a significant ongoing subsidy.

“This anticipated announcement demonstrates why you can’t trust Lib Dems to protect Sutton heritage, arts and culture."

An Arts Development Outreach Service is also planned to help art groups find funding and venues to perform.

Residents have until October 3 to take part in an online survey as part of suttonsfuture.org, before a final decision is taken in November.

Should plans be approved the venues will be shut and placed on the market in March next year.

How do you feel about the proposals? What services should be cut, and what services should be protected as the council strive to trim £40m from their budget. Give us a call on 0208 722 6358, or email tom.gillespie@london.newsquest.co.uk

Comments (83)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:18am Sat 23 Aug 14

South Sutton Resident says...

Maybe the Council should cut other expenses that less than 22% of residents use or appreciate; like the lesbian gay bisexual transsexual equality service, the 'garden wall' above Wilkinson, the 'shuttle' service that runs up & down the pedestrianised High Street and the waste of money that the Council authorised for the wooden sculptures and redesign of the High Street.

To suggest removing cultural aspects of Sutton seems incredibly short sighted especially when you consider the redevelopment of the lower end of Sutton.

I've lived in Sutton for over 20 years and it becomes more downmarket every year, why do the Liberal Democrats want to accelerate that by removing our theatres?

If this happens then shame on the Council.
Maybe the Council should cut other expenses that less than 22% of residents use or appreciate; like the lesbian gay bisexual transsexual equality service, the 'garden wall' above Wilkinson, the 'shuttle' service that runs up & down the pedestrianised High Street and the waste of money that the Council authorised for the wooden sculptures and redesign of the High Street. To suggest removing cultural aspects of Sutton seems incredibly short sighted especially when you consider the redevelopment of the lower end of Sutton. I've lived in Sutton for over 20 years and it becomes more downmarket every year, why do the Liberal Democrats want to accelerate that by removing our theatres? If this happens then shame on the Council. South Sutton Resident
  • Score: 37

9:47am Sun 24 Aug 14

PeterM says...

If the Council spent money on things that people wanted, such as the Secombe and Charles Cryer Theatres, rather than huge PR exercises like Hackbridge Corner and wooden statues that no one wants, then we wouldn't be discussing this now.

The theatres and Wallington Hall, where incidentally David Bowie and Status Quo have performed, have been neglected over the years, and been allowed to fall into disrepair.

Funny how this announcement was saved until AFTER the local elections. Nothing to do with it being a vote loser.
If the Council spent money on things that people wanted, such as the Secombe and Charles Cryer Theatres, rather than huge PR exercises like Hackbridge Corner and wooden statues that no one wants, then we wouldn't be discussing this now. The theatres and Wallington Hall, where incidentally David Bowie and Status Quo have performed, have been neglected over the years, and been allowed to fall into disrepair. Funny how this announcement was saved until AFTER the local elections. Nothing to do with it being a vote loser. PeterM
  • Score: 45

5:13pm Sun 24 Aug 14

LiberalsOut says...

Why do you vote for this lot - do voters not think ahead ???
It has been known that cuts are in the pipeline for a couple of years
Of course they are not going to publish the cuts before the election - they want you to vote them in, which you did in even higher numbers
Its a bit late to complain when you had the power to change the Council back in May
No doubt one of the biggest drains on our Council Tax the Life Centre is not subject to any cuts
Why do you vote for this lot - do voters not think ahead ??? It has been known that cuts are in the pipeline for a couple of years Of course they are not going to publish the cuts before the election - they want you to vote them in, which you did in even higher numbers Its a bit late to complain when you had the power to change the Council back in May No doubt one of the biggest drains on our Council Tax the Life Centre is not subject to any cuts LiberalsOut
  • Score: 13

10:28pm Sun 24 Aug 14

Wait right there says...

Did any of the above commentators not see this coming when there was no council tax rise for 4 years? Could they say how often they or their family have used them in the past year as apposed to social services, rubbish collection or the library's.
If we all agree to a council tax rise we can save some of these services.

To vote down click the thumbs down icon ;-)
Did any of the above commentators not see this coming when there was no council tax rise for 4 years? Could they say how often they or their family have used them in the past year as apposed to social services, rubbish collection or the library's. If we all agree to a council tax rise we can save some of these services. To vote down click the thumbs down icon ;-) Wait right there
  • Score: 11

9:30am Mon 25 Aug 14

bigmacbaker says...

The Arts suffer again, they SHOULD be subsidised as they are a valuable Community resource, the LibDems have enjoyed a long stay in Sutton but this will be the end of them and quite right too!
The Arts suffer again, they SHOULD be subsidised as they are a valuable Community resource, the LibDems have enjoyed a long stay in Sutton but this will be the end of them and quite right too! bigmacbaker
  • Score: 36

7:02pm Mon 25 Aug 14

bigmacbaker says...

Try as I might I cannot find the Consultation on suttonsfuture.org, great!!
Try as I might I cannot find the Consultation on suttonsfuture.org, great!! bigmacbaker
  • Score: 10

9:38am Tue 26 Aug 14

Hove Ex-Pat says...

I suspect, but of course cannot prove, that someone is going to earn out of this grubby little enterprise. Of course, by the time the next local elections come along, you will all be expected to have forgotten this. If not they will think of something then to distract you all.
I suspect, but of course cannot prove, that someone is going to earn out of this grubby little enterprise. Of course, by the time the next local elections come along, you will all be expected to have forgotten this. If not they will think of something then to distract you all. Hove Ex-Pat
  • Score: 11

10:00am Tue 26 Aug 14

David7 says...

“Only 22% use the theatres”, says the disingenuous little scamp Colin Hall.

That is a very high figure, and one to be proud of. Sir Harry Secombe’s ashes must be glowing.

By comparison, fewer than 22% of the eligible voters in Sutton voted for the LibDems in May.

What this does prove is that the expensively-promoted Sutton’s Future ‘campaign’ and meeting recently was nothing but a sham, as these decisions had already been researched and recommended. The document can be viewed here:

http://sutton.modern
gov.co.uk/documents/
s33147/09%20-%20Thea
tres%20and%20Halls%2
0-%20signed.pdf

You don’t put a document like that together in a couple of weeks.

So, the council’s modus operandi appears to be Decide, Consult, Ignore and Do It Anyway. They are ripping the cultural heart out of my borough.

Next up will be bins emptied every fortnight and a return to charges for garden waste removal. Don’t assume they’ll keep the libraries open – like many students, we know what a LibDem promise is worth.

Meanwhile, the Life Centre remains untouched. It will remain untouched. It is the LibDems’ baby, its pride and joy. While the theatres are subsidised to the tune of around £5 for each paying customer, the Life Centre is subsidised by £19 for each paying customer. The document linked above proposes no cuts at the Life Centre.

Go figure.
“Only 22% use the theatres”, says the disingenuous little scamp Colin Hall. That is a very high figure, and one to be proud of. Sir Harry Secombe’s ashes must be glowing. By comparison, fewer than 22% of the eligible voters in Sutton voted for the LibDems in May. What this does prove is that the expensively-promoted Sutton’s Future ‘campaign’ and meeting recently was nothing but a sham, as these decisions had already been researched and recommended. The document can be viewed here: http://sutton.modern gov.co.uk/documents/ s33147/09%20-%20Thea tres%20and%20Halls%2 0-%20signed.pdf You don’t put a document like that together in a couple of weeks. So, the council’s modus operandi appears to be Decide, Consult, Ignore and Do It Anyway. They are ripping the cultural heart out of my borough. Next up will be bins emptied every fortnight and a return to charges for garden waste removal. Don’t assume they’ll keep the libraries open – like many students, we know what a LibDem promise is worth. Meanwhile, the Life Centre remains untouched. It will remain untouched. It is the LibDems’ baby, its pride and joy. While the theatres are subsidised to the tune of around £5 for each paying customer, the Life Centre is subsidised by £19 for each paying customer. The document linked above proposes no cuts at the Life Centre. Go figure. David7
  • Score: 27

12:11pm Tue 26 Aug 14

whysaythat says...

The bigger picture here seems to be that our theatres are going to vanish due to the blinkered vision and failure that is The Life Centre.

I must be one of the 22% because I regularly see shows at Secombe and Charles Cryer Theatres.

A real shame if these proposals (well agreements) take place.
The bigger picture here seems to be that our theatres are going to vanish due to the blinkered vision and failure that is The Life Centre. I must be one of the 22% because I regularly see shows at Secombe and Charles Cryer Theatres. A real shame if these proposals (well agreements) take place. whysaythat
  • Score: 29

1:24pm Tue 26 Aug 14

LiberalsOut says...

There should be zero subsidies on these things - no wonder our Council Tax is so high !!!!
Maybe also if they cut the "fat" at the top and those shifted side ways to ensure they maximise their pension.
We need a cut in the Council Tax not a rise
There should be zero subsidies on these things - no wonder our Council Tax is so high !!!! Maybe also if they cut the "fat" at the top and those shifted side ways to ensure they maximise their pension. We need a cut in the Council Tax not a rise LiberalsOut
  • Score: -16

1:46pm Tue 26 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

This is shocking news. It can't be allowed to happen, and, judging by strength of feeling expressed above in just a few hours, the Council will have a fight on their hands if they pursue this appalling suggestion. It is paradoxical that it is the same Council that pushed through the opening of the Charles Cryer theatre in 1991. Without the Lib Dems we probably would not have this theatre. So why on earth are the Libs Dems even thinking about selling it off now??? It beggars belief.
This is shocking news. It can't be allowed to happen, and, judging by strength of feeling expressed above in just a few hours, the Council will have a fight on their hands if they pursue this appalling suggestion. It is paradoxical that it is the same Council that pushed through the opening of the Charles Cryer theatre in 1991. Without the Lib Dems we probably would not have this theatre. So why on earth are the Libs Dems even thinking about selling it off now??? It beggars belief. ResidentTony
  • Score: 17

2:43pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Giles C says...

Well Tony it isnt really a shock.. They would rather shut the theatres than stop the 500k subsidy a year to the non performing life centre....
Well Tony it isnt really a shock.. They would rather shut the theatres than stop the 500k subsidy a year to the non performing life centre.... Giles C
  • Score: 7

2:45pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Emily_Brothers says...

I’ve asked Ruth Dombey, Council Leader, repeatedly to show her hand, to say what they plan to cut. Yet they have hidden behind extensive propaganda, that they call consultation. Instead, they are drawing up proposals before the consultation period concludes. We’ll get a steady trickle of these announcements, not a strategic response to people’s feedback. It is nothing but subterfuge. This announcement demonstrates why you can’t trust Lib Dems to protect Sutton heritage, arts and culture.

The Lib Dem Council haven’t given community groups sufficient time to grapple with the challenge of securing the Secombe Theatre as a community asset. I do not understand why the Life Centre is getting special treatment, other than political expediency.

I believe their next announcement concerns car parks, particularly those on Throwley Way and St Nicholas Way are to be contracted out. This will undoubtedly lead to higher parking charges in a borough that is bedevilled by insufficient parking.

I’m concerned that ongoing negative announcements will have a serious impact on the morale of Council staff, feeding through to poorer service delivery. Council workers face job losses, with worse terms and conditions for people who are re-engaged. We know only too well the Lib Dem response, to buy more coasters and lanyards.
The truth is that you can’t trust the Lib Dem Council. They didn’t tell you in the recent election about their intention to cuts services by a further £40 Million. They are fronting a propaganda operation, whilst moving ahead on their quest to irrevocably break up your cultural facilities.

Emily Brothers
Labour Parliamentary Candidate for Sutton and Cheam
I’ve asked Ruth Dombey, Council Leader, repeatedly to show her hand, to say what they plan to cut. Yet they have hidden behind extensive propaganda, that they call consultation. Instead, they are drawing up proposals before the consultation period concludes. We’ll get a steady trickle of these announcements, not a strategic response to people’s feedback. It is nothing but subterfuge. This announcement demonstrates why you can’t trust Lib Dems to protect Sutton heritage, arts and culture. The Lib Dem Council haven’t given community groups sufficient time to grapple with the challenge of securing the Secombe Theatre as a community asset. I do not understand why the Life Centre is getting special treatment, other than political expediency. I believe their next announcement concerns car parks, particularly those on Throwley Way and St Nicholas Way are to be contracted out. This will undoubtedly lead to higher parking charges in a borough that is bedevilled by insufficient parking. I’m concerned that ongoing negative announcements will have a serious impact on the morale of Council staff, feeding through to poorer service delivery. Council workers face job losses, with worse terms and conditions for people who are re-engaged. We know only too well the Lib Dem response, to buy more coasters and lanyards. The truth is that you can’t trust the Lib Dem Council. They didn’t tell you in the recent election about their intention to cuts services by a further £40 Million. They are fronting a propaganda operation, whilst moving ahead on their quest to irrevocably break up your cultural facilities. Emily Brothers Labour Parliamentary Candidate for Sutton and Cheam Emily_Brothers
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Tue 26 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

Emily_Brothers wrote:
I’ve asked Ruth Dombey, Council Leader, repeatedly to show her hand, to say what they plan to cut. Yet they have hidden behind extensive propaganda, that they call consultation. Instead, they are drawing up proposals before the consultation period concludes. We’ll get a steady trickle of these announcements, not a strategic response to people’s feedback. It is nothing but subterfuge. This announcement demonstrates why you can’t trust Lib Dems to protect Sutton heritage, arts and culture.

The Lib Dem Council haven’t given community groups sufficient time to grapple with the challenge of securing the Secombe Theatre as a community asset. I do not understand why the Life Centre is getting special treatment, other than political expediency.

I believe their next announcement concerns car parks, particularly those on Throwley Way and St Nicholas Way are to be contracted out. This will undoubtedly lead to higher parking charges in a borough that is bedevilled by insufficient parking.

I’m concerned that ongoing negative announcements will have a serious impact on the morale of Council staff, feeding through to poorer service delivery. Council workers face job losses, with worse terms and conditions for people who are re-engaged. We know only too well the Lib Dem response, to buy more coasters and lanyards.
The truth is that you can’t trust the Lib Dem Council. They didn’t tell you in the recent election about their intention to cuts services by a further £40 Million. They are fronting a propaganda operation, whilst moving ahead on their quest to irrevocably break up your cultural facilities.

Emily Brothers
Labour Parliamentary Candidate for Sutton and Cheam
Excellent party political broadcast on behalf of the Conservative party. Also, can we stick to theatres and not go on about parking. But of course you are a politician - silly me.
[quote][p][bold]Emily_Brothers[/bold] wrote: I’ve asked Ruth Dombey, Council Leader, repeatedly to show her hand, to say what they plan to cut. Yet they have hidden behind extensive propaganda, that they call consultation. Instead, they are drawing up proposals before the consultation period concludes. We’ll get a steady trickle of these announcements, not a strategic response to people’s feedback. It is nothing but subterfuge. This announcement demonstrates why you can’t trust Lib Dems to protect Sutton heritage, arts and culture. The Lib Dem Council haven’t given community groups sufficient time to grapple with the challenge of securing the Secombe Theatre as a community asset. I do not understand why the Life Centre is getting special treatment, other than political expediency. I believe their next announcement concerns car parks, particularly those on Throwley Way and St Nicholas Way are to be contracted out. This will undoubtedly lead to higher parking charges in a borough that is bedevilled by insufficient parking. I’m concerned that ongoing negative announcements will have a serious impact on the morale of Council staff, feeding through to poorer service delivery. Council workers face job losses, with worse terms and conditions for people who are re-engaged. We know only too well the Lib Dem response, to buy more coasters and lanyards. The truth is that you can’t trust the Lib Dem Council. They didn’t tell you in the recent election about their intention to cuts services by a further £40 Million. They are fronting a propaganda operation, whilst moving ahead on their quest to irrevocably break up your cultural facilities. Emily Brothers Labour Parliamentary Candidate for Sutton and Cheam[/p][/quote]Excellent party political broadcast on behalf of the Conservative party. Also, can we stick to theatres and not go on about parking. But of course you are a politician - silly me. ResidentTony
  • Score: -1

3:10pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Giles C says...

ResidentTony wrote:
Emily_Brothers wrote:
I’ve asked Ruth Dombey, Council Leader, repeatedly to show her hand, to say what they plan to cut. Yet they have hidden behind extensive propaganda, that they call consultation. Instead, they are drawing up proposals before the consultation period concludes. We’ll get a steady trickle of these announcements, not a strategic response to people’s feedback. It is nothing but subterfuge. This announcement demonstrates why you can’t trust Lib Dems to protect Sutton heritage, arts and culture.

The Lib Dem Council haven’t given community groups sufficient time to grapple with the challenge of securing the Secombe Theatre as a community asset. I do not understand why the Life Centre is getting special treatment, other than political expediency.

I believe their next announcement concerns car parks, particularly those on Throwley Way and St Nicholas Way are to be contracted out. This will undoubtedly lead to higher parking charges in a borough that is bedevilled by insufficient parking.

I’m concerned that ongoing negative announcements will have a serious impact on the morale of Council staff, feeding through to poorer service delivery. Council workers face job losses, with worse terms and conditions for people who are re-engaged. We know only too well the Lib Dem response, to buy more coasters and lanyards.
The truth is that you can’t trust the Lib Dem Council. They didn’t tell you in the recent election about their intention to cuts services by a further £40 Million. They are fronting a propaganda operation, whilst moving ahead on their quest to irrevocably break up your cultural facilities.

Emily Brothers
Labour Parliamentary Candidate for Sutton and Cheam
Excellent party political broadcast on behalf of the Conservative party. Also, can we stick to theatres and not go on about parking. But of course you are a politician - silly me.
Emily is the Labour Party candidate!!!
Sorry tony you just cant believe that your fluffy Lib Dem mates have decided to do this...
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Emily_Brothers[/bold] wrote: I’ve asked Ruth Dombey, Council Leader, repeatedly to show her hand, to say what they plan to cut. Yet they have hidden behind extensive propaganda, that they call consultation. Instead, they are drawing up proposals before the consultation period concludes. We’ll get a steady trickle of these announcements, not a strategic response to people’s feedback. It is nothing but subterfuge. This announcement demonstrates why you can’t trust Lib Dems to protect Sutton heritage, arts and culture. The Lib Dem Council haven’t given community groups sufficient time to grapple with the challenge of securing the Secombe Theatre as a community asset. I do not understand why the Life Centre is getting special treatment, other than political expediency. I believe their next announcement concerns car parks, particularly those on Throwley Way and St Nicholas Way are to be contracted out. This will undoubtedly lead to higher parking charges in a borough that is bedevilled by insufficient parking. I’m concerned that ongoing negative announcements will have a serious impact on the morale of Council staff, feeding through to poorer service delivery. Council workers face job losses, with worse terms and conditions for people who are re-engaged. We know only too well the Lib Dem response, to buy more coasters and lanyards. The truth is that you can’t trust the Lib Dem Council. They didn’t tell you in the recent election about their intention to cuts services by a further £40 Million. They are fronting a propaganda operation, whilst moving ahead on their quest to irrevocably break up your cultural facilities. Emily Brothers Labour Parliamentary Candidate for Sutton and Cheam[/p][/quote]Excellent party political broadcast on behalf of the Conservative party. Also, can we stick to theatres and not go on about parking. But of course you are a politician - silly me.[/p][/quote]Emily is the Labour Party candidate!!! Sorry tony you just cant believe that your fluffy Lib Dem mates have decided to do this... Giles C
  • Score: 2

3:11pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Giles C says...

ResidentTony wrote:
Emily_Brothers wrote:
I’ve asked Ruth Dombey, Council Leader, repeatedly to show her hand, to say what they plan to cut. Yet they have hidden behind extensive propaganda, that they call consultation. Instead, they are drawing up proposals before the consultation period concludes. We’ll get a steady trickle of these announcements, not a strategic response to people’s feedback. It is nothing but subterfuge. This announcement demonstrates why you can’t trust Lib Dems to protect Sutton heritage, arts and culture.

The Lib Dem Council haven’t given community groups sufficient time to grapple with the challenge of securing the Secombe Theatre as a community asset. I do not understand why the Life Centre is getting special treatment, other than political expediency.

I believe their next announcement concerns car parks, particularly those on Throwley Way and St Nicholas Way are to be contracted out. This will undoubtedly lead to higher parking charges in a borough that is bedevilled by insufficient parking.

I’m concerned that ongoing negative announcements will have a serious impact on the morale of Council staff, feeding through to poorer service delivery. Council workers face job losses, with worse terms and conditions for people who are re-engaged. We know only too well the Lib Dem response, to buy more coasters and lanyards.
The truth is that you can’t trust the Lib Dem Council. They didn’t tell you in the recent election about their intention to cuts services by a further £40 Million. They are fronting a propaganda operation, whilst moving ahead on their quest to irrevocably break up your cultural facilities.

Emily Brothers
Labour Parliamentary Candidate for Sutton and Cheam
Excellent party political broadcast on behalf of the Conservative party. Also, can we stick to theatres and not go on about parking. But of course you are a politician - silly me.
Emily is the Labour Party candidate!!!
Sorry tony you just cant believe that your fluffy Lib Dem mates have decided to do this...
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Emily_Brothers[/bold] wrote: I’ve asked Ruth Dombey, Council Leader, repeatedly to show her hand, to say what they plan to cut. Yet they have hidden behind extensive propaganda, that they call consultation. Instead, they are drawing up proposals before the consultation period concludes. We’ll get a steady trickle of these announcements, not a strategic response to people’s feedback. It is nothing but subterfuge. This announcement demonstrates why you can’t trust Lib Dems to protect Sutton heritage, arts and culture. The Lib Dem Council haven’t given community groups sufficient time to grapple with the challenge of securing the Secombe Theatre as a community asset. I do not understand why the Life Centre is getting special treatment, other than political expediency. I believe their next announcement concerns car parks, particularly those on Throwley Way and St Nicholas Way are to be contracted out. This will undoubtedly lead to higher parking charges in a borough that is bedevilled by insufficient parking. I’m concerned that ongoing negative announcements will have a serious impact on the morale of Council staff, feeding through to poorer service delivery. Council workers face job losses, with worse terms and conditions for people who are re-engaged. We know only too well the Lib Dem response, to buy more coasters and lanyards. The truth is that you can’t trust the Lib Dem Council. They didn’t tell you in the recent election about their intention to cuts services by a further £40 Million. They are fronting a propaganda operation, whilst moving ahead on their quest to irrevocably break up your cultural facilities. Emily Brothers Labour Parliamentary Candidate for Sutton and Cheam[/p][/quote]Excellent party political broadcast on behalf of the Conservative party. Also, can we stick to theatres and not go on about parking. But of course you are a politician - silly me.[/p][/quote]Emily is the Labour Party candidate!!! Sorry tony you just cant believe that your fluffy Lib Dem mates have decided to do this... Giles C
  • Score: 1

3:12pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Niki R says...

No wonder the staff on the Secombe Theatre stall at the enviro fair yesterday were less than enamoured of the Lib Dem stall selling jam and bric a brac while our arts provision burns. Local schools use the theatres, and if they go local people will be left with no arts centre whatsoever- suddenly our borough looks bereft and very dull indeed. Very frustrating that they kept these proposals under wraps and showed utter disrespect for people when campaigning to keep control of the council back in May- I do wonder what the results would have been had they been honest.
No wonder the staff on the Secombe Theatre stall at the enviro fair yesterday were less than enamoured of the Lib Dem stall selling jam and bric a brac while our arts provision burns. Local schools use the theatres, and if they go local people will be left with no arts centre whatsoever- suddenly our borough looks bereft and very dull indeed. Very frustrating that they kept these proposals under wraps and showed utter disrespect for people when campaigning to keep control of the council back in May- I do wonder what the results would have been had they been honest. Niki R
  • Score: 18

3:14pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Niki R says...

ResidentTony wrote:
Emily_Brothers wrote:
I’ve asked Ruth Dombey, Council Leader, repeatedly to show her hand, to say what they plan to cut. Yet they have hidden behind extensive propaganda, that they call consultation. Instead, they are drawing up proposals before the consultation period concludes. We’ll get a steady trickle of these announcements, not a strategic response to people’s feedback. It is nothing but subterfuge. This announcement demonstrates why you can’t trust Lib Dems to protect Sutton heritage, arts and culture.

The Lib Dem Council haven’t given community groups sufficient time to grapple with the challenge of securing the Secombe Theatre as a community asset. I do not understand why the Life Centre is getting special treatment, other than political expediency.

I believe their next announcement concerns car parks, particularly those on Throwley Way and St Nicholas Way are to be contracted out. This will undoubtedly lead to higher parking charges in a borough that is bedevilled by insufficient parking.

I’m concerned that ongoing negative announcements will have a serious impact on the morale of Council staff, feeding through to poorer service delivery. Council workers face job losses, with worse terms and conditions for people who are re-engaged. We know only too well the Lib Dem response, to buy more coasters and lanyards.
The truth is that you can’t trust the Lib Dem Council. They didn’t tell you in the recent election about their intention to cuts services by a further £40 Million. They are fronting a propaganda operation, whilst moving ahead on their quest to irrevocably break up your cultural facilities.

Emily Brothers
Labour Parliamentary Candidate for Sutton and Cheam
Excellent party political broadcast on behalf of the Conservative party. Also, can we stick to theatres and not go on about parking. But of course you are a politician - silly me.
Admit it Tony- the Lib Dems finally sold you out as well as everyone else. Such a shame it took you this long to see through their nonsense and lies.
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Emily_Brothers[/bold] wrote: I’ve asked Ruth Dombey, Council Leader, repeatedly to show her hand, to say what they plan to cut. Yet they have hidden behind extensive propaganda, that they call consultation. Instead, they are drawing up proposals before the consultation period concludes. We’ll get a steady trickle of these announcements, not a strategic response to people’s feedback. It is nothing but subterfuge. This announcement demonstrates why you can’t trust Lib Dems to protect Sutton heritage, arts and culture. The Lib Dem Council haven’t given community groups sufficient time to grapple with the challenge of securing the Secombe Theatre as a community asset. I do not understand why the Life Centre is getting special treatment, other than political expediency. I believe their next announcement concerns car parks, particularly those on Throwley Way and St Nicholas Way are to be contracted out. This will undoubtedly lead to higher parking charges in a borough that is bedevilled by insufficient parking. I’m concerned that ongoing negative announcements will have a serious impact on the morale of Council staff, feeding through to poorer service delivery. Council workers face job losses, with worse terms and conditions for people who are re-engaged. We know only too well the Lib Dem response, to buy more coasters and lanyards. The truth is that you can’t trust the Lib Dem Council. They didn’t tell you in the recent election about their intention to cuts services by a further £40 Million. They are fronting a propaganda operation, whilst moving ahead on their quest to irrevocably break up your cultural facilities. Emily Brothers Labour Parliamentary Candidate for Sutton and Cheam[/p][/quote]Excellent party political broadcast on behalf of the Conservative party. Also, can we stick to theatres and not go on about parking. But of course you are a politician - silly me.[/p][/quote]Admit it Tony- the Lib Dems finally sold you out as well as everyone else. Such a shame it took you this long to see through their nonsense and lies. Niki R
  • Score: 8

3:17pm Tue 26 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

Giles C wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
Emily_Brothers wrote:
I’ve asked Ruth Dombey, Council Leader, repeatedly to show her hand, to say what they plan to cut. Yet they have hidden behind extensive propaganda, that they call consultation. Instead, they are drawing up proposals before the consultation period concludes. We’ll get a steady trickle of these announcements, not a strategic response to people’s feedback. It is nothing but subterfuge. This announcement demonstrates why you can’t trust Lib Dems to protect Sutton heritage, arts and culture.

The Lib Dem Council haven’t given community groups sufficient time to grapple with the challenge of securing the Secombe Theatre as a community asset. I do not understand why the Life Centre is getting special treatment, other than political expediency.

I believe their next announcement concerns car parks, particularly those on Throwley Way and St Nicholas Way are to be contracted out. This will undoubtedly lead to higher parking charges in a borough that is bedevilled by insufficient parking.

I’m concerned that ongoing negative announcements will have a serious impact on the morale of Council staff, feeding through to poorer service delivery. Council workers face job losses, with worse terms and conditions for people who are re-engaged. We know only too well the Lib Dem response, to buy more coasters and lanyards.
The truth is that you can’t trust the Lib Dem Council. They didn’t tell you in the recent election about their intention to cuts services by a further £40 Million. They are fronting a propaganda operation, whilst moving ahead on their quest to irrevocably break up your cultural facilities.

Emily Brothers
Labour Parliamentary Candidate for Sutton and Cheam
Excellent party political broadcast on behalf of the Conservative party. Also, can we stick to theatres and not go on about parking. But of course you are a politician - silly me.
Emily is the Labour Party candidate!!!
Sorry tony you just cant believe that your fluffy Lib Dem mates have decided to do this...
Well, she'd be more likely to get my vote if she sounded like she cared about the theatres as much as trying to get elected - which she won't anyway as Labour can't win in Sutton and Cheam. If she mentions parking once more, I'll scream!
[quote][p][bold]Giles C[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Emily_Brothers[/bold] wrote: I’ve asked Ruth Dombey, Council Leader, repeatedly to show her hand, to say what they plan to cut. Yet they have hidden behind extensive propaganda, that they call consultation. Instead, they are drawing up proposals before the consultation period concludes. We’ll get a steady trickle of these announcements, not a strategic response to people’s feedback. It is nothing but subterfuge. This announcement demonstrates why you can’t trust Lib Dems to protect Sutton heritage, arts and culture. The Lib Dem Council haven’t given community groups sufficient time to grapple with the challenge of securing the Secombe Theatre as a community asset. I do not understand why the Life Centre is getting special treatment, other than political expediency. I believe their next announcement concerns car parks, particularly those on Throwley Way and St Nicholas Way are to be contracted out. This will undoubtedly lead to higher parking charges in a borough that is bedevilled by insufficient parking. I’m concerned that ongoing negative announcements will have a serious impact on the morale of Council staff, feeding through to poorer service delivery. Council workers face job losses, with worse terms and conditions for people who are re-engaged. We know only too well the Lib Dem response, to buy more coasters and lanyards. The truth is that you can’t trust the Lib Dem Council. They didn’t tell you in the recent election about their intention to cuts services by a further £40 Million. They are fronting a propaganda operation, whilst moving ahead on their quest to irrevocably break up your cultural facilities. Emily Brothers Labour Parliamentary Candidate for Sutton and Cheam[/p][/quote]Excellent party political broadcast on behalf of the Conservative party. Also, can we stick to theatres and not go on about parking. But of course you are a politician - silly me.[/p][/quote]Emily is the Labour Party candidate!!! Sorry tony you just cant believe that your fluffy Lib Dem mates have decided to do this...[/p][/quote]Well, she'd be more likely to get my vote if she sounded like she cared about the theatres as much as trying to get elected - which she won't anyway as Labour can't win in Sutton and Cheam. If she mentions parking once more, I'll scream! ResidentTony
  • Score: 3

3:35pm Tue 26 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

David7 wrote:
“Only 22% use the theatres”, says the disingenuous little scamp Colin Hall.

That is a very high figure, and one to be proud of. Sir Harry Secombe’s ashes must be glowing.

By comparison, fewer than 22% of the eligible voters in Sutton voted for the LibDems in May.

What this does prove is that the expensively-promoted Sutton’s Future ‘campaign’ and meeting recently was nothing but a sham, as these decisions had already been researched and recommended. The document can be viewed here:

http://sutton.modern

gov.co.uk/documents/

s33147/09%20-%20Thea

tres%20and%20Halls%2

0-%20signed.pdf

You don’t put a document like that together in a couple of weeks.

So, the council’s modus operandi appears to be Decide, Consult, Ignore and Do It Anyway. They are ripping the cultural heart out of my borough.

Next up will be bins emptied every fortnight and a return to charges for garden waste removal. Don’t assume they’ll keep the libraries open – like many students, we know what a LibDem promise is worth.

Meanwhile, the Life Centre remains untouched. It will remain untouched. It is the LibDems’ baby, its pride and joy. While the theatres are subsidised to the tune of around £5 for each paying customer, the Life Centre is subsidised by £19 for each paying customer. The document linked above proposes no cuts at the Life Centre.

Go figure.
David you were doing so well until you started going on about garden waste. Can we please stick to the subject in hand, or the theatres really will go dark.
[quote][p][bold]David7[/bold] wrote: “Only 22% use the theatres”, says the disingenuous little scamp Colin Hall. That is a very high figure, and one to be proud of. Sir Harry Secombe’s ashes must be glowing. By comparison, fewer than 22% of the eligible voters in Sutton voted for the LibDems in May. What this does prove is that the expensively-promoted Sutton’s Future ‘campaign’ and meeting recently was nothing but a sham, as these decisions had already been researched and recommended. The document can be viewed here: http://sutton.modern gov.co.uk/documents/ s33147/09%20-%20Thea tres%20and%20Halls%2 0-%20signed.pdf You don’t put a document like that together in a couple of weeks. So, the council’s modus operandi appears to be Decide, Consult, Ignore and Do It Anyway. They are ripping the cultural heart out of my borough. Next up will be bins emptied every fortnight and a return to charges for garden waste removal. Don’t assume they’ll keep the libraries open – like many students, we know what a LibDem promise is worth. Meanwhile, the Life Centre remains untouched. It will remain untouched. It is the LibDems’ baby, its pride and joy. While the theatres are subsidised to the tune of around £5 for each paying customer, the Life Centre is subsidised by £19 for each paying customer. The document linked above proposes no cuts at the Life Centre. Go figure.[/p][/quote]David you were doing so well until you started going on about garden waste. Can we please stick to the subject in hand, or the theatres really will go dark. ResidentTony
  • Score: -3

4:02pm Tue 26 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

Niki R wrote:
No wonder the staff on the Secombe Theatre stall at the enviro fair yesterday were less than enamoured of the Lib Dem stall selling jam and bric a brac while our arts provision burns. Local schools use the theatres, and if they go local people will be left with no arts centre whatsoever- suddenly our borough looks bereft and very dull indeed. Very frustrating that they kept these proposals under wraps and showed utter disrespect for people when campaigning to keep control of the council back in May- I do wonder what the results would have been had they been honest.
Are you saying that there wasn't even any informal consultation before the formal process starts?
[quote][p][bold]Niki R[/bold] wrote: No wonder the staff on the Secombe Theatre stall at the enviro fair yesterday were less than enamoured of the Lib Dem stall selling jam and bric a brac while our arts provision burns. Local schools use the theatres, and if they go local people will be left with no arts centre whatsoever- suddenly our borough looks bereft and very dull indeed. Very frustrating that they kept these proposals under wraps and showed utter disrespect for people when campaigning to keep control of the council back in May- I do wonder what the results would have been had they been honest.[/p][/quote]Are you saying that there wasn't even any informal consultation before the formal process starts? ResidentTony
  • Score: 1

5:17pm Tue 26 Aug 14

David7 says...

ResidentTony wrote:
David7 wrote:
“Only 22% use the theatres”, says the disingenuous little scamp Colin Hall.

That is a very high figure, and one to be proud of. Sir Harry Secombe’s ashes must be glowing.

By comparison, fewer than 22% of the eligible voters in Sutton voted for the LibDems in May.

What this does prove is that the expensively-promoted Sutton’s Future ‘campaign’ and meeting recently was nothing but a sham, as these decisions had already been researched and recommended. The document can be viewed here:

http://sutton.modern


gov.co.uk/documents/


s33147/09%20-%20Thea


tres%20and%20Halls%2


0-%20signed.pdf

You don’t put a document like that together in a couple of weeks.

So, the council’s modus operandi appears to be Decide, Consult, Ignore and Do It Anyway. They are ripping the cultural heart out of my borough.

Next up will be bins emptied every fortnight and a return to charges for garden waste removal. Don’t assume they’ll keep the libraries open – like many students, we know what a LibDem promise is worth.

Meanwhile, the Life Centre remains untouched. It will remain untouched. It is the LibDems’ baby, its pride and joy. While the theatres are subsidised to the tune of around £5 for each paying customer, the Life Centre is subsidised by £19 for each paying customer. The document linked above proposes no cuts at the Life Centre.

Go figure.
David you were doing so well until you started going on about garden waste. Can we please stick to the subject in hand, or the theatres really will go dark.
Er, no, I won’t. This is the thin end of a very big wedge. You’d have to be blind to reality, or politically illiterate, not to realise that.

There will also be job losses associated with these cuts.

This council is being brazenly dishonest in the way it is addressing the need to make cuts. My major gripe is with the underhand way the LibDems are manipulating ‘consultation’ and releasing bad news over a Bank Holiday. The Sutton’s Future ‘consultation’ is also clearly a total sham, a charade to make the gullible feel their voice as a resident has any power.

You might say all politicians do this, but this lot are taking local government cynicism to astronomical levels, and undoing many of the better things they’ve achieved over the years.
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David7[/bold] wrote: “Only 22% use the theatres”, says the disingenuous little scamp Colin Hall. That is a very high figure, and one to be proud of. Sir Harry Secombe’s ashes must be glowing. By comparison, fewer than 22% of the eligible voters in Sutton voted for the LibDems in May. What this does prove is that the expensively-promoted Sutton’s Future ‘campaign’ and meeting recently was nothing but a sham, as these decisions had already been researched and recommended. The document can be viewed here: http://sutton.modern gov.co.uk/documents/ s33147/09%20-%20Thea tres%20and%20Halls%2 0-%20signed.pdf You don’t put a document like that together in a couple of weeks. So, the council’s modus operandi appears to be Decide, Consult, Ignore and Do It Anyway. They are ripping the cultural heart out of my borough. Next up will be bins emptied every fortnight and a return to charges for garden waste removal. Don’t assume they’ll keep the libraries open – like many students, we know what a LibDem promise is worth. Meanwhile, the Life Centre remains untouched. It will remain untouched. It is the LibDems’ baby, its pride and joy. While the theatres are subsidised to the tune of around £5 for each paying customer, the Life Centre is subsidised by £19 for each paying customer. The document linked above proposes no cuts at the Life Centre. Go figure.[/p][/quote]David you were doing so well until you started going on about garden waste. Can we please stick to the subject in hand, or the theatres really will go dark.[/p][/quote]Er, no, I won’t. This is the thin end of a very big wedge. You’d have to be blind to reality, or politically illiterate, not to realise that. There will also be job losses associated with these cuts. This council is being brazenly dishonest in the way it is addressing the need to make cuts. My major gripe is with the underhand way the LibDems are manipulating ‘consultation’ and releasing bad news over a Bank Holiday. The Sutton’s Future ‘consultation’ is also clearly a total sham, a charade to make the gullible feel their voice as a resident has any power. You might say all politicians do this, but this lot are taking local government cynicism to astronomical levels, and undoing many of the better things they’ve achieved over the years. David7
  • Score: 12

5:41pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Central-Sutton-resident says...

Apart from the life centre ( as most agree it's not a priority)- it would be good to hear what regular commentators on here would like to see ( or reluctantly agree to) being cut?
Apart from the life centre ( as most agree it's not a priority)- it would be good to hear what regular commentators on here would like to see ( or reluctantly agree to) being cut? Central-Sutton-resident
  • Score: 1

5:59pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Niki R says...

ResidentTony wrote:
Niki R wrote:
No wonder the staff on the Secombe Theatre stall at the enviro fair yesterday were less than enamoured of the Lib Dem stall selling jam and bric a brac while our arts provision burns. Local schools use the theatres, and if they go local people will be left with no arts centre whatsoever- suddenly our borough looks bereft and very dull indeed. Very frustrating that they kept these proposals under wraps and showed utter disrespect for people when campaigning to keep control of the council back in May- I do wonder what the results would have been had they been honest.
Are you saying that there wasn't even any informal consultation before the formal process starts?
Have you seen one take place or been asked your thoughts? Were these proposals part of the recent 'consultation'? No, they were not. The contempt the Lib Dems have for people in this Borough is staggering, but if you voted for them or didn't vote at all, you are simply getting the Council you deserve.
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Niki R[/bold] wrote: No wonder the staff on the Secombe Theatre stall at the enviro fair yesterday were less than enamoured of the Lib Dem stall selling jam and bric a brac while our arts provision burns. Local schools use the theatres, and if they go local people will be left with no arts centre whatsoever- suddenly our borough looks bereft and very dull indeed. Very frustrating that they kept these proposals under wraps and showed utter disrespect for people when campaigning to keep control of the council back in May- I do wonder what the results would have been had they been honest.[/p][/quote]Are you saying that there wasn't even any informal consultation before the formal process starts?[/p][/quote]Have you seen one take place or been asked your thoughts? Were these proposals part of the recent 'consultation'? No, they were not. The contempt the Lib Dems have for people in this Borough is staggering, but if you voted for them or didn't vote at all, you are simply getting the Council you deserve. Niki R
  • Score: 5

6:13pm Tue 26 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

David7 wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
David7 wrote:
“Only 22% use the theatres”, says the disingenuous little scamp Colin Hall.

That is a very high figure, and one to be proud of. Sir Harry Secombe’s ashes must be glowing.

By comparison, fewer than 22% of the eligible voters in Sutton voted for the LibDems in May.

What this does prove is that the expensively-promoted Sutton’s Future ‘campaign’ and meeting recently was nothing but a sham, as these decisions had already been researched and recommended. The document can be viewed here:

http://sutton.modern



gov.co.uk/documents/



s33147/09%20-%20Thea



tres%20and%20Halls%2



0-%20signed.pdf

You don’t put a document like that together in a couple of weeks.

So, the council’s modus operandi appears to be Decide, Consult, Ignore and Do It Anyway. They are ripping the cultural heart out of my borough.

Next up will be bins emptied every fortnight and a return to charges for garden waste removal. Don’t assume they’ll keep the libraries open – like many students, we know what a LibDem promise is worth.

Meanwhile, the Life Centre remains untouched. It will remain untouched. It is the LibDems’ baby, its pride and joy. While the theatres are subsidised to the tune of around £5 for each paying customer, the Life Centre is subsidised by £19 for each paying customer. The document linked above proposes no cuts at the Life Centre.

Go figure.
David you were doing so well until you started going on about garden waste. Can we please stick to the subject in hand, or the theatres really will go dark.
Er, no, I won’t. This is the thin end of a very big wedge. You’d have to be blind to reality, or politically illiterate, not to realise that.

There will also be job losses associated with these cuts.

This council is being brazenly dishonest in the way it is addressing the need to make cuts. My major gripe is with the underhand way the LibDems are manipulating ‘consultation’ and releasing bad news over a Bank Holiday. The Sutton’s Future ‘consultation’ is also clearly a total sham, a charade to make the gullible feel their voice as a resident has any power.

You might say all politicians do this, but this lot are taking local government cynicism to astronomical levels, and undoing many of the better things they’ve achieved over the years.
You did not mention the word "theatre" once. Why am I not surprised? Your posts are always so politically slanted at the end of the day, they lose whatever credibility they may otherwise have had. There always has to be a political sting in the tail.

PS If any Lib Dem councillors or MPs are reading this, please reconsider these worrying proposals.
[quote][p][bold]David7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David7[/bold] wrote: “Only 22% use the theatres”, says the disingenuous little scamp Colin Hall. That is a very high figure, and one to be proud of. Sir Harry Secombe’s ashes must be glowing. By comparison, fewer than 22% of the eligible voters in Sutton voted for the LibDems in May. What this does prove is that the expensively-promoted Sutton’s Future ‘campaign’ and meeting recently was nothing but a sham, as these decisions had already been researched and recommended. The document can be viewed here: http://sutton.modern gov.co.uk/documents/ s33147/09%20-%20Thea tres%20and%20Halls%2 0-%20signed.pdf You don’t put a document like that together in a couple of weeks. So, the council’s modus operandi appears to be Decide, Consult, Ignore and Do It Anyway. They are ripping the cultural heart out of my borough. Next up will be bins emptied every fortnight and a return to charges for garden waste removal. Don’t assume they’ll keep the libraries open – like many students, we know what a LibDem promise is worth. Meanwhile, the Life Centre remains untouched. It will remain untouched. It is the LibDems’ baby, its pride and joy. While the theatres are subsidised to the tune of around £5 for each paying customer, the Life Centre is subsidised by £19 for each paying customer. The document linked above proposes no cuts at the Life Centre. Go figure.[/p][/quote]David you were doing so well until you started going on about garden waste. Can we please stick to the subject in hand, or the theatres really will go dark.[/p][/quote]Er, no, I won’t. This is the thin end of a very big wedge. You’d have to be blind to reality, or politically illiterate, not to realise that. There will also be job losses associated with these cuts. This council is being brazenly dishonest in the way it is addressing the need to make cuts. My major gripe is with the underhand way the LibDems are manipulating ‘consultation’ and releasing bad news over a Bank Holiday. The Sutton’s Future ‘consultation’ is also clearly a total sham, a charade to make the gullible feel their voice as a resident has any power. You might say all politicians do this, but this lot are taking local government cynicism to astronomical levels, and undoing many of the better things they’ve achieved over the years.[/p][/quote]You did not mention the word "theatre" once. Why am I not surprised? Your posts are always so politically slanted at the end of the day, they lose whatever credibility they may otherwise have had. There always has to be a political sting in the tail. PS If any Lib Dem councillors or MPs are reading this, please reconsider these worrying proposals. ResidentTony
  • Score: -2

6:16pm Tue 26 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

South Sutton Resident wrote:
Maybe the Council should cut other expenses that less than 22% of residents use or appreciate; like the lesbian gay bisexual transsexual equality service, the 'garden wall' above Wilkinson, the 'shuttle' service that runs up & down the pedestrianised High Street and the waste of money that the Council authorised for the wooden sculptures and redesign of the High Street.

To suggest removing cultural aspects of Sutton seems incredibly short sighted especially when you consider the redevelopment of the lower end of Sutton.

I've lived in Sutton for over 20 years and it becomes more downmarket every year, why do the Liberal Democrats want to accelerate that by removing our theatres?

If this happens then shame on the Council.
You say you support culture. However, some of your comments come across as very uncultured, unless you think Bernard Manning is the height of culture. Just saying....
[quote][p][bold]South Sutton Resident[/bold] wrote: Maybe the Council should cut other expenses that less than 22% of residents use or appreciate; like the lesbian gay bisexual transsexual equality service, the 'garden wall' above Wilkinson, the 'shuttle' service that runs up & down the pedestrianised High Street and the waste of money that the Council authorised for the wooden sculptures and redesign of the High Street. To suggest removing cultural aspects of Sutton seems incredibly short sighted especially when you consider the redevelopment of the lower end of Sutton. I've lived in Sutton for over 20 years and it becomes more downmarket every year, why do the Liberal Democrats want to accelerate that by removing our theatres? If this happens then shame on the Council.[/p][/quote]You say you support culture. However, some of your comments come across as very uncultured, unless you think Bernard Manning is the height of culture. Just saying.... ResidentTony
  • Score: 4

6:23pm Tue 26 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

Niki R wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
Niki R wrote:
No wonder the staff on the Secombe Theatre stall at the enviro fair yesterday were less than enamoured of the Lib Dem stall selling jam and bric a brac while our arts provision burns. Local schools use the theatres, and if they go local people will be left with no arts centre whatsoever- suddenly our borough looks bereft and very dull indeed. Very frustrating that they kept these proposals under wraps and showed utter disrespect for people when campaigning to keep control of the council back in May- I do wonder what the results would have been had they been honest.
Are you saying that there wasn't even any informal consultation before the formal process starts?
Have you seen one take place or been asked your thoughts? Were these proposals part of the recent 'consultation'? No, they were not. The contempt the Lib Dems have for people in this Borough is staggering, but if you voted for them or didn't vote at all, you are simply getting the Council you deserve.
Blah, blah, blah. Change the record, Niki.
[quote][p][bold]Niki R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Niki R[/bold] wrote: No wonder the staff on the Secombe Theatre stall at the enviro fair yesterday were less than enamoured of the Lib Dem stall selling jam and bric a brac while our arts provision burns. Local schools use the theatres, and if they go local people will be left with no arts centre whatsoever- suddenly our borough looks bereft and very dull indeed. Very frustrating that they kept these proposals under wraps and showed utter disrespect for people when campaigning to keep control of the council back in May- I do wonder what the results would have been had they been honest.[/p][/quote]Are you saying that there wasn't even any informal consultation before the formal process starts?[/p][/quote]Have you seen one take place or been asked your thoughts? Were these proposals part of the recent 'consultation'? No, they were not. The contempt the Lib Dems have for people in this Borough is staggering, but if you voted for them or didn't vote at all, you are simply getting the Council you deserve.[/p][/quote]Blah, blah, blah. Change the record, Niki. ResidentTony
  • Score: -6

6:25pm Tue 26 Aug 14

David7 says...

ResidentTony wrote:
David7 wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
David7 wrote:
“Only 22% use the theatres”, says the disingenuous little scamp Colin Hall.

That is a very high figure, and one to be proud of. Sir Harry Secombe’s ashes must be glowing.

By comparison, fewer than 22% of the eligible voters in Sutton voted for the LibDems in May.

What this does prove is that the expensively-promoted Sutton’s Future ‘campaign’ and meeting recently was nothing but a sham, as these decisions had already been researched and recommended. The document can be viewed here:

http://sutton.modern




gov.co.uk/documents/




s33147/09%20-%20Thea




tres%20and%20Halls%2




0-%20signed.pdf

You don’t put a document like that together in a couple of weeks.

So, the council’s modus operandi appears to be Decide, Consult, Ignore and Do It Anyway. They are ripping the cultural heart out of my borough.

Next up will be bins emptied every fortnight and a return to charges for garden waste removal. Don’t assume they’ll keep the libraries open – like many students, we know what a LibDem promise is worth.

Meanwhile, the Life Centre remains untouched. It will remain untouched. It is the LibDems’ baby, its pride and joy. While the theatres are subsidised to the tune of around £5 for each paying customer, the Life Centre is subsidised by £19 for each paying customer. The document linked above proposes no cuts at the Life Centre.

Go figure.
David you were doing so well until you started going on about garden waste. Can we please stick to the subject in hand, or the theatres really will go dark.
Er, no, I won’t. This is the thin end of a very big wedge. You’d have to be blind to reality, or politically illiterate, not to realise that.

There will also be job losses associated with these cuts.

This council is being brazenly dishonest in the way it is addressing the need to make cuts. My major gripe is with the underhand way the LibDems are manipulating ‘consultation’ and releasing bad news over a Bank Holiday. The Sutton’s Future ‘consultation’ is also clearly a total sham, a charade to make the gullible feel their voice as a resident has any power.

You might say all politicians do this, but this lot are taking local government cynicism to astronomical levels, and undoing many of the better things they’ve achieved over the years.
You did not mention the word "theatre" once. Why am I not surprised? Your posts are always so politically slanted at the end of the day, they lose whatever credibility they may otherwise have had. There always has to be a political sting in the tail.

PS If any Lib Dem councillors or MPs are reading this, please reconsider these worrying proposals.
Er... ‘Theatres’ was in my first sentence.

Tony, you know nothing of my politics. I think it is you who seems to pick fights on here – I have made no comment other than in response to you.

As I said earlier, this is the thin end of the wedge, and the article invites comments on the wider issues.

Nice of you to police these comments threads for us, though.
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David7[/bold] wrote: “Only 22% use the theatres”, says the disingenuous little scamp Colin Hall. That is a very high figure, and one to be proud of. Sir Harry Secombe’s ashes must be glowing. By comparison, fewer than 22% of the eligible voters in Sutton voted for the LibDems in May. What this does prove is that the expensively-promoted Sutton’s Future ‘campaign’ and meeting recently was nothing but a sham, as these decisions had already been researched and recommended. The document can be viewed here: http://sutton.modern gov.co.uk/documents/ s33147/09%20-%20Thea tres%20and%20Halls%2 0-%20signed.pdf You don’t put a document like that together in a couple of weeks. So, the council’s modus operandi appears to be Decide, Consult, Ignore and Do It Anyway. They are ripping the cultural heart out of my borough. Next up will be bins emptied every fortnight and a return to charges for garden waste removal. Don’t assume they’ll keep the libraries open – like many students, we know what a LibDem promise is worth. Meanwhile, the Life Centre remains untouched. It will remain untouched. It is the LibDems’ baby, its pride and joy. While the theatres are subsidised to the tune of around £5 for each paying customer, the Life Centre is subsidised by £19 for each paying customer. The document linked above proposes no cuts at the Life Centre. Go figure.[/p][/quote]David you were doing so well until you started going on about garden waste. Can we please stick to the subject in hand, or the theatres really will go dark.[/p][/quote]Er, no, I won’t. This is the thin end of a very big wedge. You’d have to be blind to reality, or politically illiterate, not to realise that. There will also be job losses associated with these cuts. This council is being brazenly dishonest in the way it is addressing the need to make cuts. My major gripe is with the underhand way the LibDems are manipulating ‘consultation’ and releasing bad news over a Bank Holiday. The Sutton’s Future ‘consultation’ is also clearly a total sham, a charade to make the gullible feel their voice as a resident has any power. You might say all politicians do this, but this lot are taking local government cynicism to astronomical levels, and undoing many of the better things they’ve achieved over the years.[/p][/quote]You did not mention the word "theatre" once. Why am I not surprised? Your posts are always so politically slanted at the end of the day, they lose whatever credibility they may otherwise have had. There always has to be a political sting in the tail. PS If any Lib Dem councillors or MPs are reading this, please reconsider these worrying proposals.[/p][/quote]Er... ‘Theatres’ was in my first sentence. Tony, you know nothing of my politics. I think it is you who seems to pick fights on here – I have made no comment other than in response to you. As I said earlier, this is the thin end of the wedge, and the article invites comments on the wider issues. Nice of you to police these comments threads for us, though. David7
  • Score: 3

6:44pm Tue 26 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

David7 wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
David7 wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
David7 wrote:
“Only 22% use the theatres”, says the disingenuous little scamp Colin Hall.

That is a very high figure, and one to be proud of. Sir Harry Secombe’s ashes must be glowing.

By comparison, fewer than 22% of the eligible voters in Sutton voted for the LibDems in May.

What this does prove is that the expensively-promoted Sutton’s Future ‘campaign’ and meeting recently was nothing but a sham, as these decisions had already been researched and recommended. The document can be viewed here:

http://sutton.modern





gov.co.uk/documents/





s33147/09%20-%20Thea





tres%20and%20Halls%2





0-%20signed.pdf

You don’t put a document like that together in a couple of weeks.

So, the council’s modus operandi appears to be Decide, Consult, Ignore and Do It Anyway. They are ripping the cultural heart out of my borough.

Next up will be bins emptied every fortnight and a return to charges for garden waste removal. Don’t assume they’ll keep the libraries open – like many students, we know what a LibDem promise is worth.

Meanwhile, the Life Centre remains untouched. It will remain untouched. It is the LibDems’ baby, its pride and joy. While the theatres are subsidised to the tune of around £5 for each paying customer, the Life Centre is subsidised by £19 for each paying customer. The document linked above proposes no cuts at the Life Centre.

Go figure.
David you were doing so well until you started going on about garden waste. Can we please stick to the subject in hand, or the theatres really will go dark.
Er, no, I won’t. This is the thin end of a very big wedge. You’d have to be blind to reality, or politically illiterate, not to realise that.

There will also be job losses associated with these cuts.

This council is being brazenly dishonest in the way it is addressing the need to make cuts. My major gripe is with the underhand way the LibDems are manipulating ‘consultation’ and releasing bad news over a Bank Holiday. The Sutton’s Future ‘consultation’ is also clearly a total sham, a charade to make the gullible feel their voice as a resident has any power.

You might say all politicians do this, but this lot are taking local government cynicism to astronomical levels, and undoing many of the better things they’ve achieved over the years.
You did not mention the word "theatre" once. Why am I not surprised? Your posts are always so politically slanted at the end of the day, they lose whatever credibility they may otherwise have had. There always has to be a political sting in the tail.

PS If any Lib Dem councillors or MPs are reading this, please reconsider these worrying proposals.
Er... ‘Theatres’ was in my first sentence.

Tony, you know nothing of my politics. I think it is you who seems to pick fights on here – I have made no comment other than in response to you.

As I said earlier, this is the thin end of the wedge, and the article invites comments on the wider issues.

Nice of you to police these comments threads for us, though.
Er, the word theatre was not in the post of yours to which I was responding. I don't know what your politics are as you have never deigned to say, which is your prerogative. But you never miss an opportunity to bash the Lib Dem Council, which we may please the Niki Rs and Liberalsouts of this world, but leaves me cold. In fact, you probably should say which party you DO support, as you never cease to make it abundantly clear which one you do not support. PS told you we'd disagree in the future :)
[quote][p][bold]David7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David7[/bold] wrote: “Only 22% use the theatres”, says the disingenuous little scamp Colin Hall. That is a very high figure, and one to be proud of. Sir Harry Secombe’s ashes must be glowing. By comparison, fewer than 22% of the eligible voters in Sutton voted for the LibDems in May. What this does prove is that the expensively-promoted Sutton’s Future ‘campaign’ and meeting recently was nothing but a sham, as these decisions had already been researched and recommended. The document can be viewed here: http://sutton.modern gov.co.uk/documents/ s33147/09%20-%20Thea tres%20and%20Halls%2 0-%20signed.pdf You don’t put a document like that together in a couple of weeks. So, the council’s modus operandi appears to be Decide, Consult, Ignore and Do It Anyway. They are ripping the cultural heart out of my borough. Next up will be bins emptied every fortnight and a return to charges for garden waste removal. Don’t assume they’ll keep the libraries open – like many students, we know what a LibDem promise is worth. Meanwhile, the Life Centre remains untouched. It will remain untouched. It is the LibDems’ baby, its pride and joy. While the theatres are subsidised to the tune of around £5 for each paying customer, the Life Centre is subsidised by £19 for each paying customer. The document linked above proposes no cuts at the Life Centre. Go figure.[/p][/quote]David you were doing so well until you started going on about garden waste. Can we please stick to the subject in hand, or the theatres really will go dark.[/p][/quote]Er, no, I won’t. This is the thin end of a very big wedge. You’d have to be blind to reality, or politically illiterate, not to realise that. There will also be job losses associated with these cuts. This council is being brazenly dishonest in the way it is addressing the need to make cuts. My major gripe is with the underhand way the LibDems are manipulating ‘consultation’ and releasing bad news over a Bank Holiday. The Sutton’s Future ‘consultation’ is also clearly a total sham, a charade to make the gullible feel their voice as a resident has any power. You might say all politicians do this, but this lot are taking local government cynicism to astronomical levels, and undoing many of the better things they’ve achieved over the years.[/p][/quote]You did not mention the word "theatre" once. Why am I not surprised? Your posts are always so politically slanted at the end of the day, they lose whatever credibility they may otherwise have had. There always has to be a political sting in the tail. PS If any Lib Dem councillors or MPs are reading this, please reconsider these worrying proposals.[/p][/quote]Er... ‘Theatres’ was in my first sentence. Tony, you know nothing of my politics. I think it is you who seems to pick fights on here – I have made no comment other than in response to you. As I said earlier, this is the thin end of the wedge, and the article invites comments on the wider issues. Nice of you to police these comments threads for us, though.[/p][/quote]Er, the word theatre was not in the post of yours to which I was responding. I don't know what your politics are as you have never deigned to say, which is your prerogative. But you never miss an opportunity to bash the Lib Dem Council, which we may please the Niki Rs and Liberalsouts of this world, but leaves me cold. In fact, you probably should say which party you DO support, as you never cease to make it abundantly clear which one you do not support. PS told you we'd disagree in the future :) ResidentTony
  • Score: -2

7:08pm Tue 26 Aug 14

netty061 says...

I'm a member of Sutton Theatre Company and we put on a show at the Secombe twice a year, most years - they've been doing that for the last 30 odd years. We were at the Environmental Fair in Carshalton yesterday and a "friendly" councillor (no idea what party) came over to warn us that they had been informed about the consultation meeting due on 4.9.14 only last Friday and suggested we ought to start lobbying now. We have been in contact with other theatre companies in the area who use both the Secombe and Charles Cryer theatres (I can't comment on Wallington Hall as we are based in the Sutton/Cheam end). As the Lib Dems were there as well, we went over and spoke to Tom Brake who really just confirmed our fears and passed us over the Joe Whitehead, who is the lead councillor for environment and leisure. We got information on how we can 'lobby', which is lucky we did as we could have so easily done it wrong and ended up missing important deadlines. I think one of the biggest problems is that the theatres are badly managed and have been for sometime - probably because of money issues (they have been under threat many times) but they just don't seem to have the marketing skills to make the money to improve it. We will be devastated if these theatres go.
I'm a member of Sutton Theatre Company and we put on a show at the Secombe twice a year, most years - they've been doing that for the last 30 odd years. We were at the Environmental Fair in Carshalton yesterday and a "friendly" councillor (no idea what party) came over to warn us that they had been informed about the consultation meeting due on 4.9.14 only last Friday and suggested we ought to start lobbying now. We have been in contact with other theatre companies in the area who use both the Secombe and Charles Cryer theatres (I can't comment on Wallington Hall as we are based in the Sutton/Cheam end). As the Lib Dems were there as well, we went over and spoke to Tom Brake who really just confirmed our fears and passed us over the Joe Whitehead, who is the lead councillor for environment and leisure. We got information on how we can 'lobby', which is lucky we did as we could have so easily done it wrong and ended up missing important deadlines. I think one of the biggest problems is that the theatres are badly managed and have been for sometime - probably because of money issues (they have been under threat many times) but they just don't seem to have the marketing skills to make the money to improve it. We will be devastated if these theatres go. netty061
  • Score: 30

7:59pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Niki R says...

ResidentTony wrote:
Niki R wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
Niki R wrote:
No wonder the staff on the Secombe Theatre stall at the enviro fair yesterday were less than enamoured of the Lib Dem stall selling jam and bric a brac while our arts provision burns. Local schools use the theatres, and if they go local people will be left with no arts centre whatsoever- suddenly our borough looks bereft and very dull indeed. Very frustrating that they kept these proposals under wraps and showed utter disrespect for people when campaigning to keep control of the council back in May- I do wonder what the results would have been had they been honest.
Are you saying that there wasn't even any informal consultation before the formal process starts?
Have you seen one take place or been asked your thoughts? Were these proposals part of the recent 'consultation'? No, they were not. The contempt the Lib Dems have for people in this Borough is staggering, but if you voted for them or didn't vote at all, you are simply getting the Council you deserve.
Blah, blah, blah. Change the record, Niki.
I rest my case! Tony, I hope you are proud of the party of two faced, double crossing fools that you back. God knows they give nobody else any cause to be.
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Niki R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Niki R[/bold] wrote: No wonder the staff on the Secombe Theatre stall at the enviro fair yesterday were less than enamoured of the Lib Dem stall selling jam and bric a brac while our arts provision burns. Local schools use the theatres, and if they go local people will be left with no arts centre whatsoever- suddenly our borough looks bereft and very dull indeed. Very frustrating that they kept these proposals under wraps and showed utter disrespect for people when campaigning to keep control of the council back in May- I do wonder what the results would have been had they been honest.[/p][/quote]Are you saying that there wasn't even any informal consultation before the formal process starts?[/p][/quote]Have you seen one take place or been asked your thoughts? Were these proposals part of the recent 'consultation'? No, they were not. The contempt the Lib Dems have for people in this Borough is staggering, but if you voted for them or didn't vote at all, you are simply getting the Council you deserve.[/p][/quote]Blah, blah, blah. Change the record, Niki.[/p][/quote]I rest my case! Tony, I hope you are proud of the party of two faced, double crossing fools that you back. God knows they give nobody else any cause to be. Niki R
  • Score: 3

8:12pm Tue 26 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

Niki R wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
Niki R wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
Niki R wrote:
No wonder the staff on the Secombe Theatre stall at the enviro fair yesterday were less than enamoured of the Lib Dem stall selling jam and bric a brac while our arts provision burns. Local schools use the theatres, and if they go local people will be left with no arts centre whatsoever- suddenly our borough looks bereft and very dull indeed. Very frustrating that they kept these proposals under wraps and showed utter disrespect for people when campaigning to keep control of the council back in May- I do wonder what the results would have been had they been honest.
Are you saying that there wasn't even any informal consultation before the formal process starts?
Have you seen one take place or been asked your thoughts? Were these proposals part of the recent 'consultation'? No, they were not. The contempt the Lib Dems have for people in this Borough is staggering, but if you voted for them or didn't vote at all, you are simply getting the Council you deserve.
Blah, blah, blah. Change the record, Niki.
I rest my case! Tony, I hope you are proud of the party of two faced, double crossing fools that you back. God knows they give nobody else any cause to be.
You just can't seem to see beyond the world of party politics - every issue is used as political football. You seem quite gleeful: what's a couple of theatres if it gives you a nice big stick with which to bash the enemy. For my part, I don't really "back" any party as such, strange as that may seem to a politico. All I back is Sutton, and I hate it that the future of our theatres is suddenly not certain.
[quote][p][bold]Niki R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Niki R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Niki R[/bold] wrote: No wonder the staff on the Secombe Theatre stall at the enviro fair yesterday were less than enamoured of the Lib Dem stall selling jam and bric a brac while our arts provision burns. Local schools use the theatres, and if they go local people will be left with no arts centre whatsoever- suddenly our borough looks bereft and very dull indeed. Very frustrating that they kept these proposals under wraps and showed utter disrespect for people when campaigning to keep control of the council back in May- I do wonder what the results would have been had they been honest.[/p][/quote]Are you saying that there wasn't even any informal consultation before the formal process starts?[/p][/quote]Have you seen one take place or been asked your thoughts? Were these proposals part of the recent 'consultation'? No, they were not. The contempt the Lib Dems have for people in this Borough is staggering, but if you voted for them or didn't vote at all, you are simply getting the Council you deserve.[/p][/quote]Blah, blah, blah. Change the record, Niki.[/p][/quote]I rest my case! Tony, I hope you are proud of the party of two faced, double crossing fools that you back. God knows they give nobody else any cause to be.[/p][/quote]You just can't seem to see beyond the world of party politics - every issue is used as political football. You seem quite gleeful: what's a couple of theatres if it gives you a nice big stick with which to bash the enemy. For my part, I don't really "back" any party as such, strange as that may seem to a politico. All I back is Sutton, and I hate it that the future of our theatres is suddenly not certain. ResidentTony
  • Score: -1

8:41pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Niki R says...

ResidentTony wrote:
Niki R wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
Niki R wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
Niki R wrote:
No wonder the staff on the Secombe Theatre stall at the enviro fair yesterday were less than enamoured of the Lib Dem stall selling jam and bric a brac while our arts provision burns. Local schools use the theatres, and if they go local people will be left with no arts centre whatsoever- suddenly our borough looks bereft and very dull indeed. Very frustrating that they kept these proposals under wraps and showed utter disrespect for people when campaigning to keep control of the council back in May- I do wonder what the results would have been had they been honest.
Are you saying that there wasn't even any informal consultation before the formal process starts?
Have you seen one take place or been asked your thoughts? Were these proposals part of the recent 'consultation'? No, they were not. The contempt the Lib Dems have for people in this Borough is staggering, but if you voted for them or didn't vote at all, you are simply getting the Council you deserve.
Blah, blah, blah. Change the record, Niki.
I rest my case! Tony, I hope you are proud of the party of two faced, double crossing fools that you back. God knows they give nobody else any cause to be.
You just can't seem to see beyond the world of party politics - every issue is used as political football. You seem quite gleeful: what's a couple of theatres if it gives you a nice big stick with which to bash the enemy. For my part, I don't really "back" any party as such, strange as that may seem to a politico. All I back is Sutton, and I hate it that the future of our theatres is suddenly not certain.
Gleeful? What have I said that makes me appear happy that this bunch of cultural imbeciles are wrecking our theatres and draining the arts from our Borough? I am far from happy. I am furious; furious with them for their wanton destruction of our arts facilities, and furious that they were re-elected to do so. You need to rein yourself in Tony and stop trolling anyone who happens not to support your pets. We can agree that our theatres are worth protecting, so why not stop thee and not pick yet another fight in the tedious and predictable way you always seem to whenever I post?
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Niki R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Niki R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Niki R[/bold] wrote: No wonder the staff on the Secombe Theatre stall at the enviro fair yesterday were less than enamoured of the Lib Dem stall selling jam and bric a brac while our arts provision burns. Local schools use the theatres, and if they go local people will be left with no arts centre whatsoever- suddenly our borough looks bereft and very dull indeed. Very frustrating that they kept these proposals under wraps and showed utter disrespect for people when campaigning to keep control of the council back in May- I do wonder what the results would have been had they been honest.[/p][/quote]Are you saying that there wasn't even any informal consultation before the formal process starts?[/p][/quote]Have you seen one take place or been asked your thoughts? Were these proposals part of the recent 'consultation'? No, they were not. The contempt the Lib Dems have for people in this Borough is staggering, but if you voted for them or didn't vote at all, you are simply getting the Council you deserve.[/p][/quote]Blah, blah, blah. Change the record, Niki.[/p][/quote]I rest my case! Tony, I hope you are proud of the party of two faced, double crossing fools that you back. God knows they give nobody else any cause to be.[/p][/quote]You just can't seem to see beyond the world of party politics - every issue is used as political football. You seem quite gleeful: what's a couple of theatres if it gives you a nice big stick with which to bash the enemy. For my part, I don't really "back" any party as such, strange as that may seem to a politico. All I back is Sutton, and I hate it that the future of our theatres is suddenly not certain.[/p][/quote]Gleeful? What have I said that makes me appear happy that this bunch of cultural imbeciles are wrecking our theatres and draining the arts from our Borough? I am far from happy. I am furious; furious with them for their wanton destruction of our arts facilities, and furious that they were re-elected to do so. You need to rein yourself in Tony and stop trolling anyone who happens not to support your pets. We can agree that our theatres are worth protecting, so why not stop thee and not pick yet another fight in the tedious and predictable way you always seem to whenever I post? Niki R
  • Score: 3

8:50pm Tue 26 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

Central-Sutton-resid
ent
wrote:
Apart from the life centre ( as most agree it's not a priority)- it would be good to hear what regular commentators on here would like to see ( or reluctantly agree to) being cut?
A very fair question. But does anything necessarily need to be cut? As David7 said in one of his more constructive points, the theatres are only subsidised to the tune of £5 per paying customer. The extra council tax this represents is minimal. Council tax should not be quite so sacrosanct as it seems to have become; but our theatres, which are the cultural bedrock of the borough, should be.
[quote][p][bold]Central-Sutton-resid ent[/bold] wrote: Apart from the life centre ( as most agree it's not a priority)- it would be good to hear what regular commentators on here would like to see ( or reluctantly agree to) being cut?[/p][/quote]A very fair question. But does anything necessarily need to be cut? As David7 said in one of his more constructive points, the theatres are only subsidised to the tune of £5 per paying customer. The extra council tax this represents is minimal. Council tax should not be quite so sacrosanct as it seems to have become; but our theatres, which are the cultural bedrock of the borough, should be. ResidentTony
  • Score: 6

8:55pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Giles C says...

Anyway .... The claim that 137000 people visit the life centre is absurd.. Why are they so intent on protecting something that is so obviously a drain on precious council resources?
Im sure Tony you can answer!
Anyway .... The claim that 137000 people visit the life centre is absurd.. Why are they so intent on protecting something that is so obviously a drain on precious council resources? Im sure Tony you can answer! Giles C
  • Score: 6

9:08pm Tue 26 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

Niki R wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
Niki R wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
Niki R wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
Niki R wrote:
No wonder the staff on the Secombe Theatre stall at the enviro fair yesterday were less than enamoured of the Lib Dem stall selling jam and bric a brac while our arts provision burns. Local schools use the theatres, and if they go local people will be left with no arts centre whatsoever- suddenly our borough looks bereft and very dull indeed. Very frustrating that they kept these proposals under wraps and showed utter disrespect for people when campaigning to keep control of the council back in May- I do wonder what the results would have been had they been honest.
Are you saying that there wasn't even any informal consultation before the formal process starts?
Have you seen one take place or been asked your thoughts? Were these proposals part of the recent 'consultation'? No, they were not. The contempt the Lib Dems have for people in this Borough is staggering, but if you voted for them or didn't vote at all, you are simply getting the Council you deserve.
Blah, blah, blah. Change the record, Niki.
I rest my case! Tony, I hope you are proud of the party of two faced, double crossing fools that you back. God knows they give nobody else any cause to be.
You just can't seem to see beyond the world of party politics - every issue is used as political football. You seem quite gleeful: what's a couple of theatres if it gives you a nice big stick with which to bash the enemy. For my part, I don't really "back" any party as such, strange as that may seem to a politico. All I back is Sutton, and I hate it that the future of our theatres is suddenly not certain.
Gleeful? What have I said that makes me appear happy that this bunch of cultural imbeciles are wrecking our theatres and draining the arts from our Borough? I am far from happy. I am furious; furious with them for their wanton destruction of our arts facilities, and furious that they were re-elected to do so. You need to rein yourself in Tony and stop trolling anyone who happens not to support your pets. We can agree that our theatres are worth protecting, so why not stop thee and not pick yet another fight in the tedious and predictable way you always seem to whenever I post?
I have just said that I don't have any political pets. My only "pet" is the borough. The people of this country are sick to the back teeth of the futile punch and Judy show you politicos keep putting on for us. Wind down the rhetoric if you know how to, and try to be constructive. Why not start a campaign to save the theatres, rather than ranting at the hated liberal enemy on every issue which comes along in these columns? Liberalsout can do that quite effectively on their own. But you should rise above that nonsense and do something useful. Go on, use your campaigning skills to save these theatres.
[quote][p][bold]Niki R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Niki R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Niki R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Niki R[/bold] wrote: No wonder the staff on the Secombe Theatre stall at the enviro fair yesterday were less than enamoured of the Lib Dem stall selling jam and bric a brac while our arts provision burns. Local schools use the theatres, and if they go local people will be left with no arts centre whatsoever- suddenly our borough looks bereft and very dull indeed. Very frustrating that they kept these proposals under wraps and showed utter disrespect for people when campaigning to keep control of the council back in May- I do wonder what the results would have been had they been honest.[/p][/quote]Are you saying that there wasn't even any informal consultation before the formal process starts?[/p][/quote]Have you seen one take place or been asked your thoughts? Were these proposals part of the recent 'consultation'? No, they were not. The contempt the Lib Dems have for people in this Borough is staggering, but if you voted for them or didn't vote at all, you are simply getting the Council you deserve.[/p][/quote]Blah, blah, blah. Change the record, Niki.[/p][/quote]I rest my case! Tony, I hope you are proud of the party of two faced, double crossing fools that you back. God knows they give nobody else any cause to be.[/p][/quote]You just can't seem to see beyond the world of party politics - every issue is used as political football. You seem quite gleeful: what's a couple of theatres if it gives you a nice big stick with which to bash the enemy. For my part, I don't really "back" any party as such, strange as that may seem to a politico. All I back is Sutton, and I hate it that the future of our theatres is suddenly not certain.[/p][/quote]Gleeful? What have I said that makes me appear happy that this bunch of cultural imbeciles are wrecking our theatres and draining the arts from our Borough? I am far from happy. I am furious; furious with them for their wanton destruction of our arts facilities, and furious that they were re-elected to do so. You need to rein yourself in Tony and stop trolling anyone who happens not to support your pets. We can agree that our theatres are worth protecting, so why not stop thee and not pick yet another fight in the tedious and predictable way you always seem to whenever I post?[/p][/quote]I have just said that I don't have any political pets. My only "pet" is the borough. The people of this country are sick to the back teeth of the futile punch and Judy show you politicos keep putting on for us. Wind down the rhetoric if you know how to, and try to be constructive. Why not start a campaign to save the theatres, rather than ranting at the hated liberal enemy on every issue which comes along in these columns? Liberalsout can do that quite effectively on their own. But you should rise above that nonsense and do something useful. Go on, use your campaigning skills to save these theatres. ResidentTony
  • Score: -2

9:24pm Tue 26 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

Giles C wrote:
Anyway .... The claim that 137000 people visit the life centre is absurd.. Why are they so intent on protecting something that is so obviously a drain on precious council resources?
Im sure Tony you can answer!
I am not so sure the Life Centre is being "protected" as such. But to the extent that it is in a slightly safer position than some services, it probably has to do with the 4 million pounds of lottery money which we can all agree it would be mad to have to hand back. But you know that already....
[quote][p][bold]Giles C[/bold] wrote: Anyway .... The claim that 137000 people visit the life centre is absurd.. Why are they so intent on protecting something that is so obviously a drain on precious council resources? Im sure Tony you can answer![/p][/quote]I am not so sure the Life Centre is being "protected" as such. But to the extent that it is in a slightly safer position than some services, it probably has to do with the 4 million pounds of lottery money which we can all agree it would be mad to have to hand back. But you know that already.... ResidentTony
  • Score: 2

9:55pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Giles C says...

ResidentTony wrote:
Giles C wrote:
Anyway .... The claim that 137000 people visit the life centre is absurd.. Why are they so intent on protecting something that is so obviously a drain on precious council resources?
Im sure Tony you can answer!
I am not so sure the Life Centre is being "protected" as such. But to the extent that it is in a slightly safer position than some services, it probably has to do with the 4 million pounds of lottery money which we can all agree it would be mad to have to hand back. But you know that already....
But if it costs you 15 mill over 20 years arent you better off cutting yr losses?
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Giles C[/bold] wrote: Anyway .... The claim that 137000 people visit the life centre is absurd.. Why are they so intent on protecting something that is so obviously a drain on precious council resources? Im sure Tony you can answer![/p][/quote]I am not so sure the Life Centre is being "protected" as such. But to the extent that it is in a slightly safer position than some services, it probably has to do with the 4 million pounds of lottery money which we can all agree it would be mad to have to hand back. But you know that already....[/p][/quote]But if it costs you 15 mill over 20 years arent you better off cutting yr losses? Giles C
  • Score: 4

9:57pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Giles C says...

ResidentTony wrote:
Central-Sutton-resid

ent
wrote:
Apart from the life centre ( as most agree it's not a priority)- it would be good to hear what regular commentators on here would like to see ( or reluctantly agree to) being cut?
A very fair question. But does anything necessarily need to be cut? As David7 said in one of his more constructive points, the theatres are only subsidised to the tune of £5 per paying customer. The extra council tax this represents is minimal. Council tax should not be quite so sacrosanct as it seems to have become; but our theatres, which are the cultural bedrock of the borough, should be.
So bin the Life centre!!!!
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Central-Sutton-resid ent[/bold] wrote: Apart from the life centre ( as most agree it's not a priority)- it would be good to hear what regular commentators on here would like to see ( or reluctantly agree to) being cut?[/p][/quote]A very fair question. But does anything necessarily need to be cut? As David7 said in one of his more constructive points, the theatres are only subsidised to the tune of £5 per paying customer. The extra council tax this represents is minimal. Council tax should not be quite so sacrosanct as it seems to have become; but our theatres, which are the cultural bedrock of the borough, should be.[/p][/quote]So bin the Life centre!!!! Giles C
  • Score: -1

10:26pm Tue 26 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

Giles C wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
Giles C wrote:
Anyway .... The claim that 137000 people visit the life centre is absurd.. Why are they so intent on protecting something that is so obviously a drain on precious council resources?
Im sure Tony you can answer!
I am not so sure the Life Centre is being "protected" as such. But to the extent that it is in a slightly safer position than some services, it probably has to do with the 4 million pounds of lottery money which we can all agree it would be mad to have to hand back. But you know that already....
But if it costs you 15 mill over 20 years arent you better off cutting yr losses?
But who says it will cost 15 million over 20 years - who knows how much it will cost/make if it gets the better management and promotion it deserves?
[quote][p][bold]Giles C[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Giles C[/bold] wrote: Anyway .... The claim that 137000 people visit the life centre is absurd.. Why are they so intent on protecting something that is so obviously a drain on precious council resources? Im sure Tony you can answer![/p][/quote]I am not so sure the Life Centre is being "protected" as such. But to the extent that it is in a slightly safer position than some services, it probably has to do with the 4 million pounds of lottery money which we can all agree it would be mad to have to hand back. But you know that already....[/p][/quote]But if it costs you 15 mill over 20 years arent you better off cutting yr losses?[/p][/quote]But who says it will cost 15 million over 20 years - who knows how much it will cost/make if it gets the better management and promotion it deserves? ResidentTony
  • Score: 0

10:42pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Giles C says...

ResidentTony wrote:
Giles C wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
Giles C wrote:
Anyway .... The claim that 137000 people visit the life centre is absurd.. Why are they so intent on protecting something that is so obviously a drain on precious council resources?
Im sure Tony you can answer!
I am not so sure the Life Centre is being "protected" as such. But to the extent that it is in a slightly safer position than some services, it probably has to do with the 4 million pounds of lottery money which we can all agree it would be mad to have to hand back. But you know that already....
But if it costs you 15 mill over 20 years arent you better off cutting yr losses?
But who says it will cost 15 million over 20 years - who knows how much it will cost/make if it gets the better management and promotion it deserves?
It's the here and now that counts...
Also the press release talks of maintaining just the museums...what guarantee is there for the revenue for them ? Also if you take lottery or heritage funding you are committed to them for years...just like the life centre.

Where people actually create revenue we are closing down and doubtless selling for flats that will create council tax to subsidise the museums..
Go figure Resident Tony..that's the absurd logic we are dealing with here..
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Giles C[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Giles C[/bold] wrote: Anyway .... The claim that 137000 people visit the life centre is absurd.. Why are they so intent on protecting something that is so obviously a drain on precious council resources? Im sure Tony you can answer![/p][/quote]I am not so sure the Life Centre is being "protected" as such. But to the extent that it is in a slightly safer position than some services, it probably has to do with the 4 million pounds of lottery money which we can all agree it would be mad to have to hand back. But you know that already....[/p][/quote]But if it costs you 15 mill over 20 years arent you better off cutting yr losses?[/p][/quote]But who says it will cost 15 million over 20 years - who knows how much it will cost/make if it gets the better management and promotion it deserves?[/p][/quote]It's the here and now that counts... Also the press release talks of maintaining just the museums...what guarantee is there for the revenue for them ? Also if you take lottery or heritage funding you are committed to them for years...just like the life centre. Where people actually create revenue we are closing down and doubtless selling for flats that will create council tax to subsidise the museums.. Go figure Resident Tony..that's the absurd logic we are dealing with here.. Giles C
  • Score: 2

10:43pm Tue 26 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

Giles C wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
Central-Sutton-resid


ent
wrote:
Apart from the life centre ( as most agree it's not a priority)- it would be good to hear what regular commentators on here would like to see ( or reluctantly agree to) being cut?
A very fair question. But does anything necessarily need to be cut? As David7 said in one of his more constructive points, the theatres are only subsidised to the tune of £5 per paying customer. The extra council tax this represents is minimal. Council tax should not be quite so sacrosanct as it seems to have become; but our theatres, which are the cultural bedrock of the borough, should be.
So bin the Life centre!!!!
Binning the one won't save the other. The best way to save the theatres is through an effective, professional campaign by the people of the borough to save these facilities. SOMEONE WITH CAMPAIGNING SKILLS needs to LEAD a constructive campaign to save these civic treasures. The campaign needs to make the point loud and clear that the people won't stand idly by and let this cultural vandalism happen in our borough. I've suggested Niki R for this job. But David7 could also do it. Someone needs to grasp the nettle now.
[quote][p][bold]Giles C[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Central-Sutton-resid ent[/bold] wrote: Apart from the life centre ( as most agree it's not a priority)- it would be good to hear what regular commentators on here would like to see ( or reluctantly agree to) being cut?[/p][/quote]A very fair question. But does anything necessarily need to be cut? As David7 said in one of his more constructive points, the theatres are only subsidised to the tune of £5 per paying customer. The extra council tax this represents is minimal. Council tax should not be quite so sacrosanct as it seems to have become; but our theatres, which are the cultural bedrock of the borough, should be.[/p][/quote]So bin the Life centre!!!![/p][/quote]Binning the one won't save the other. The best way to save the theatres is through an effective, professional campaign by the people of the borough to save these facilities. SOMEONE WITH CAMPAIGNING SKILLS needs to LEAD a constructive campaign to save these civic treasures. The campaign needs to make the point loud and clear that the people won't stand idly by and let this cultural vandalism happen in our borough. I've suggested Niki R for this job. But David7 could also do it. Someone needs to grasp the nettle now. ResidentTony
  • Score: 7

10:51pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Giles C says...

ResidentTony wrote:
Giles C wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
Central-Sutton-resid



ent
wrote:
Apart from the life centre ( as most agree it's not a priority)- it would be good to hear what regular commentators on here would like to see ( or reluctantly agree to) being cut?
A very fair question. But does anything necessarily need to be cut? As David7 said in one of his more constructive points, the theatres are only subsidised to the tune of £5 per paying customer. The extra council tax this represents is minimal. Council tax should not be quite so sacrosanct as it seems to have become; but our theatres, which are the cultural bedrock of the borough, should be.
So bin the Life centre!!!!
Binning the one won't save the other. The best way to save the theatres is through an effective, professional campaign by the people of the borough to save these facilities. SOMEONE WITH CAMPAIGNING SKILLS needs to LEAD a constructive campaign to save these civic treasures. The campaign needs to make the point loud and clear that the people won't stand idly by and let this cultural vandalism happen in our borough. I've suggested Niki R for this job. But David7 could also do it. Someone needs to grasp the nettle now.
On this I am glad we can agree... I think we can save at least one...
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Giles C[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Central-Sutton-resid ent[/bold] wrote: Apart from the life centre ( as most agree it's not a priority)- it would be good to hear what regular commentators on here would like to see ( or reluctantly agree to) being cut?[/p][/quote]A very fair question. But does anything necessarily need to be cut? As David7 said in one of his more constructive points, the theatres are only subsidised to the tune of £5 per paying customer. The extra council tax this represents is minimal. Council tax should not be quite so sacrosanct as it seems to have become; but our theatres, which are the cultural bedrock of the borough, should be.[/p][/quote]So bin the Life centre!!!![/p][/quote]Binning the one won't save the other. The best way to save the theatres is through an effective, professional campaign by the people of the borough to save these facilities. SOMEONE WITH CAMPAIGNING SKILLS needs to LEAD a constructive campaign to save these civic treasures. The campaign needs to make the point loud and clear that the people won't stand idly by and let this cultural vandalism happen in our borough. I've suggested Niki R for this job. But David7 could also do it. Someone needs to grasp the nettle now.[/p][/quote]On this I am glad we can agree... I think we can save at least one... Giles C
  • Score: 4

10:54pm Tue 26 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

Giles C wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
Giles C wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
Giles C wrote:
Anyway .... The claim that 137000 people visit the life centre is absurd.. Why are they so intent on protecting something that is so obviously a drain on precious council resources?
Im sure Tony you can answer!
I am not so sure the Life Centre is being "protected" as such. But to the extent that it is in a slightly safer position than some services, it probably has to do with the 4 million pounds of lottery money which we can all agree it would be mad to have to hand back. But you know that already....
But if it costs you 15 mill over 20 years arent you better off cutting yr losses?
But who says it will cost 15 million over 20 years - who knows how much it will cost/make if it gets the better management and promotion it deserves?
It's the here and now that counts...
Also the press release talks of maintaining just the museums...what guarantee is there for the revenue for them ? Also if you take lottery or heritage funding you are committed to them for years...just like the life centre.

Where people actually create revenue we are closing down and doubtless selling for flats that will create council tax to subsidise the museums..
Go figure Resident Tony..that's the absurd logic we are dealing with here..
Well the logic is obviously so absurd, that I am lost - what NET revenue creating assets are we closing down?
[quote][p][bold]Giles C[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Giles C[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Giles C[/bold] wrote: Anyway .... The claim that 137000 people visit the life centre is absurd.. Why are they so intent on protecting something that is so obviously a drain on precious council resources? Im sure Tony you can answer![/p][/quote]I am not so sure the Life Centre is being "protected" as such. But to the extent that it is in a slightly safer position than some services, it probably has to do with the 4 million pounds of lottery money which we can all agree it would be mad to have to hand back. But you know that already....[/p][/quote]But if it costs you 15 mill over 20 years arent you better off cutting yr losses?[/p][/quote]But who says it will cost 15 million over 20 years - who knows how much it will cost/make if it gets the better management and promotion it deserves?[/p][/quote]It's the here and now that counts... Also the press release talks of maintaining just the museums...what guarantee is there for the revenue for them ? Also if you take lottery or heritage funding you are committed to them for years...just like the life centre. Where people actually create revenue we are closing down and doubtless selling for flats that will create council tax to subsidise the museums.. Go figure Resident Tony..that's the absurd logic we are dealing with here..[/p][/quote]Well the logic is obviously so absurd, that I am lost - what NET revenue creating assets are we closing down? ResidentTony
  • Score: 0

11:42pm Tue 26 Aug 14

Central-Sutton-resident says...

ResidentTony wrote:
Central-Sutton-resid

ent
wrote:
Apart from the life centre ( as most agree it's not a priority)- it would be good to hear what regular commentators on here would like to see ( or reluctantly agree to) being cut?
A very fair question. But does anything necessarily need to be cut? As David7 said in one of his more constructive points, the theatres are only subsidised to the tune of £5 per paying customer. The extra council tax this represents is minimal. Council tax should not be quite so sacrosanct as it seems to have become; but our theatres, which are the cultural bedrock of the borough, should be.
Personally, I'm favour of lower council tax. My council tax is in the top 5 of monthly expenses, and I would like it to be lower, however I'm less sure of where I would make the cuts. There are a number expenditures I think are unnecessary , and there are a variety of vanity projects I don't think have been implemented with the local residents best interest at heart. One thing that springs to mind is the plethora of works in feb / march each year to utilise un spent budgets so it is 'rolled over' to the following year.

I don't cultural / arts projects should be be first on the chopping block, but if kept should share the burden. I'm also aware of the many number cases the council likes to go into legally ( at great costs) which i also think in the round would probably not be supported by many locals. Examples being the long delays with the development of the unoccupied building opposite tesco express near the station ( developer now pulled out, so another couple of years....) and the aim to reverse laws implemented to aid conversion of unoccupied offices to flats by the council ( empty offices being a problem in sutton ). So my question would be, should they be getting involved I'm so many issues at our great expense ? Should their role be smaller ?
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Central-Sutton-resid ent[/bold] wrote: Apart from the life centre ( as most agree it's not a priority)- it would be good to hear what regular commentators on here would like to see ( or reluctantly agree to) being cut?[/p][/quote]A very fair question. But does anything necessarily need to be cut? As David7 said in one of his more constructive points, the theatres are only subsidised to the tune of £5 per paying customer. The extra council tax this represents is minimal. Council tax should not be quite so sacrosanct as it seems to have become; but our theatres, which are the cultural bedrock of the borough, should be.[/p][/quote]Personally, I'm favour of lower council tax. My council tax is in the top 5 of monthly expenses, and I would like it to be lower, however I'm less sure of where I would make the cuts. There are a number expenditures I think are unnecessary , and there are a variety of vanity projects I don't think have been implemented with the local residents best interest at heart. One thing that springs to mind is the plethora of works in feb / march each year to utilise un spent budgets so it is 'rolled over' to the following year. I don't cultural / arts projects should be be first on the chopping block, but if kept should share the burden. I'm also aware of the many number cases the council likes to go into legally ( at great costs) which i also think in the round would probably not be supported by many locals. Examples being the long delays with the development of the unoccupied building opposite tesco express near the station ( developer now pulled out, so another couple of years....) and the aim to reverse laws implemented to aid conversion of unoccupied offices to flats by the council ( empty offices being a problem in sutton ). So my question would be, should they be getting involved I'm so many issues at our great expense ? Should their role be smaller ? Central-Sutton-resident
  • Score: 1

8:10am Wed 27 Aug 14

South Sutton Resident says...

ResidentTony wrote:
South Sutton Resident wrote:
Maybe the Council should cut other expenses that less than 22% of residents use or appreciate; like the lesbian gay bisexual transsexual equality service, the 'garden wall' above Wilkinson, the 'shuttle' service that runs up & down the pedestrianised High Street and the waste of money that the Council authorised for the wooden sculptures and redesign of the High Street.

To suggest removing cultural aspects of Sutton seems incredibly short sighted especially when you consider the redevelopment of the lower end of Sutton.

I've lived in Sutton for over 20 years and it becomes more downmarket every year, why do the Liberal Democrats want to accelerate that by removing our theatres?

If this happens then shame on the Council.
You say you support culture. However, some of your comments come across as very uncultured, unless you think Bernard Manning is the height of culture. Just saying....
So because I dare point out that less than 22% of residents are likely to benefit from the LGBT scheme, the garden wall, the shuttle service or the redesign of the High Street I'm somehow 'uncultured'.

I suspect it's because I 'dare' to suggest that most Politically Correct arena of gay equality isn't benefiting the majority that leads you to make your comment. Show me that above 22% of Sutton residents are not heterosexual and I'll concede the point.

I don't see why people with alternative sexual lifestyles need a separate service to ensure they can access the Council services; I wasn't aware that their lifestyle meant they couldn't use normal Council services.
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Sutton Resident[/bold] wrote: Maybe the Council should cut other expenses that less than 22% of residents use or appreciate; like the lesbian gay bisexual transsexual equality service, the 'garden wall' above Wilkinson, the 'shuttle' service that runs up & down the pedestrianised High Street and the waste of money that the Council authorised for the wooden sculptures and redesign of the High Street. To suggest removing cultural aspects of Sutton seems incredibly short sighted especially when you consider the redevelopment of the lower end of Sutton. I've lived in Sutton for over 20 years and it becomes more downmarket every year, why do the Liberal Democrats want to accelerate that by removing our theatres? If this happens then shame on the Council.[/p][/quote]You say you support culture. However, some of your comments come across as very uncultured, unless you think Bernard Manning is the height of culture. Just saying....[/p][/quote]So because I dare point out that less than 22% of residents are likely to benefit from the LGBT scheme, the garden wall, the shuttle service or the redesign of the High Street I'm somehow 'uncultured'. I suspect it's because I 'dare' to suggest that most Politically Correct arena of gay equality isn't benefiting the majority that leads you to make your comment. Show me that above 22% of Sutton residents are not heterosexual and I'll concede the point. I don't see why people with alternative sexual lifestyles need a separate service to ensure they can access the Council services; I wasn't aware that their lifestyle meant they couldn't use normal Council services. South Sutton Resident
  • Score: -22

8:10am Wed 27 Aug 14

South Sutton Resident says...

ResidentTony wrote:
South Sutton Resident wrote:
Maybe the Council should cut other expenses that less than 22% of residents use or appreciate; like the lesbian gay bisexual transsexual equality service, the 'garden wall' above Wilkinson, the 'shuttle' service that runs up & down the pedestrianised High Street and the waste of money that the Council authorised for the wooden sculptures and redesign of the High Street.

To suggest removing cultural aspects of Sutton seems incredibly short sighted especially when you consider the redevelopment of the lower end of Sutton.

I've lived in Sutton for over 20 years and it becomes more downmarket every year, why do the Liberal Democrats want to accelerate that by removing our theatres?

If this happens then shame on the Council.
You say you support culture. However, some of your comments come across as very uncultured, unless you think Bernard Manning is the height of culture. Just saying....
So because I dare point out that less than 22% of residents are likely to benefit from the LGBT scheme, the garden wall, the shuttle service or the redesign of the High Street I'm somehow 'uncultured'.

I suspect it's because I 'dare' to suggest that most Politically Correct arena of gay equality isn't benefiting the majority that leads you to make your comment. Show me that above 22% of Sutton residents are not heterosexual and I'll concede the point.

I don't see why people with alternative sexual lifestyles need a separate service to ensure they can access the Council services; I wasn't aware that their lifestyle meant they couldn't use normal Council services.
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Sutton Resident[/bold] wrote: Maybe the Council should cut other expenses that less than 22% of residents use or appreciate; like the lesbian gay bisexual transsexual equality service, the 'garden wall' above Wilkinson, the 'shuttle' service that runs up & down the pedestrianised High Street and the waste of money that the Council authorised for the wooden sculptures and redesign of the High Street. To suggest removing cultural aspects of Sutton seems incredibly short sighted especially when you consider the redevelopment of the lower end of Sutton. I've lived in Sutton for over 20 years and it becomes more downmarket every year, why do the Liberal Democrats want to accelerate that by removing our theatres? If this happens then shame on the Council.[/p][/quote]You say you support culture. However, some of your comments come across as very uncultured, unless you think Bernard Manning is the height of culture. Just saying....[/p][/quote]So because I dare point out that less than 22% of residents are likely to benefit from the LGBT scheme, the garden wall, the shuttle service or the redesign of the High Street I'm somehow 'uncultured'. I suspect it's because I 'dare' to suggest that most Politically Correct arena of gay equality isn't benefiting the majority that leads you to make your comment. Show me that above 22% of Sutton residents are not heterosexual and I'll concede the point. I don't see why people with alternative sexual lifestyles need a separate service to ensure they can access the Council services; I wasn't aware that their lifestyle meant they couldn't use normal Council services. South Sutton Resident
  • Score: -20

9:11am Wed 27 Aug 14

Giles C says...

ResidentTony wrote:
Giles C wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
Giles C wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
Giles C wrote:
Anyway .... The claim that 137000 people visit the life centre is absurd.. Why are they so intent on protecting something that is so obviously a drain on precious council resources?
Im sure Tony you can answer!
I am not so sure the Life Centre is being "protected" as such. But to the extent that it is in a slightly safer position than some services, it probably has to do with the 4 million pounds of lottery money which we can all agree it would be mad to have to hand back. But you know that already....
But if it costs you 15 mill over 20 years arent you better off cutting yr losses?
But who says it will cost 15 million over 20 years - who knows how much it will cost/make if it gets the better management and promotion it deserves?
It's the here and now that counts...
Also the press release talks of maintaining just the museums...what guarantee is there for the revenue for them ? Also if you take lottery or heritage funding you are committed to them for years...just like the life centre.

Where people actually create revenue we are closing down and doubtless selling for flats that will create council tax to subsidise the museums..
Go figure Resident Tony..that's the absurd logic we are dealing with here..
Well the logic is obviously so absurd, that I am lost - what NET revenue creating assets are we closing down?
The Museums are free to go into thus produce zero revenue...The theatres are hired out and thus produce a revenue...Which ones are we getting rid of?
Yes the ones that produce a revenue albeit not enough i grant you. But we will be left with the ones that have to be totally subsidised for ever and a day..
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Giles C[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Giles C[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Giles C[/bold] wrote: Anyway .... The claim that 137000 people visit the life centre is absurd.. Why are they so intent on protecting something that is so obviously a drain on precious council resources? Im sure Tony you can answer![/p][/quote]I am not so sure the Life Centre is being "protected" as such. But to the extent that it is in a slightly safer position than some services, it probably has to do with the 4 million pounds of lottery money which we can all agree it would be mad to have to hand back. But you know that already....[/p][/quote]But if it costs you 15 mill over 20 years arent you better off cutting yr losses?[/p][/quote]But who says it will cost 15 million over 20 years - who knows how much it will cost/make if it gets the better management and promotion it deserves?[/p][/quote]It's the here and now that counts... Also the press release talks of maintaining just the museums...what guarantee is there for the revenue for them ? Also if you take lottery or heritage funding you are committed to them for years...just like the life centre. Where people actually create revenue we are closing down and doubtless selling for flats that will create council tax to subsidise the museums.. Go figure Resident Tony..that's the absurd logic we are dealing with here..[/p][/quote]Well the logic is obviously so absurd, that I am lost - what NET revenue creating assets are we closing down?[/p][/quote]The Museums are free to go into thus produce zero revenue...The theatres are hired out and thus produce a revenue...Which ones are we getting rid of? Yes the ones that produce a revenue albeit not enough i grant you. But we will be left with the ones that have to be totally subsidised for ever and a day.. Giles C
  • Score: 3

11:13am Wed 27 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

South Sutton Resident wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
South Sutton Resident wrote:
Maybe the Council should cut other expenses that less than 22% of residents use or appreciate; like the lesbian gay bisexual transsexual equality service, the 'garden wall' above Wilkinson, the 'shuttle' service that runs up & down the pedestrianised High Street and the waste of money that the Council authorised for the wooden sculptures and redesign of the High Street.

To suggest removing cultural aspects of Sutton seems incredibly short sighted especially when you consider the redevelopment of the lower end of Sutton.

I've lived in Sutton for over 20 years and it becomes more downmarket every year, why do the Liberal Democrats want to accelerate that by removing our theatres?

If this happens then shame on the Council.
You say you support culture. However, some of your comments come across as very uncultured, unless you think Bernard Manning is the height of culture. Just saying....
So because I dare point out that less than 22% of residents are likely to benefit from the LGBT scheme, the garden wall, the shuttle service or the redesign of the High Street I'm somehow 'uncultured'.

I suspect it's because I 'dare' to suggest that most Politically Correct arena of gay equality isn't benefiting the majority that leads you to make your comment. Show me that above 22% of Sutton residents are not heterosexual and I'll concede the point.

I don't see why people with alternative sexual lifestyles need a separate service to ensure they can access the Council services; I wasn't aware that their lifestyle meant they couldn't use normal Council services.
trust someone to bring their Neanderthal UKIP politics into this debate. Go back to the Daily Mail and Bernard Manning.
[quote][p][bold]South Sutton Resident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Sutton Resident[/bold] wrote: Maybe the Council should cut other expenses that less than 22% of residents use or appreciate; like the lesbian gay bisexual transsexual equality service, the 'garden wall' above Wilkinson, the 'shuttle' service that runs up & down the pedestrianised High Street and the waste of money that the Council authorised for the wooden sculptures and redesign of the High Street. To suggest removing cultural aspects of Sutton seems incredibly short sighted especially when you consider the redevelopment of the lower end of Sutton. I've lived in Sutton for over 20 years and it becomes more downmarket every year, why do the Liberal Democrats want to accelerate that by removing our theatres? If this happens then shame on the Council.[/p][/quote]You say you support culture. However, some of your comments come across as very uncultured, unless you think Bernard Manning is the height of culture. Just saying....[/p][/quote]So because I dare point out that less than 22% of residents are likely to benefit from the LGBT scheme, the garden wall, the shuttle service or the redesign of the High Street I'm somehow 'uncultured'. I suspect it's because I 'dare' to suggest that most Politically Correct arena of gay equality isn't benefiting the majority that leads you to make your comment. Show me that above 22% of Sutton residents are not heterosexual and I'll concede the point. I don't see why people with alternative sexual lifestyles need a separate service to ensure they can access the Council services; I wasn't aware that their lifestyle meant they couldn't use normal Council services.[/p][/quote]trust someone to bring their Neanderthal UKIP politics into this debate. Go back to the Daily Mail and Bernard Manning. ResidentTony
  • Score: 19

11:18am Wed 27 Aug 14

Bonnie Craven says...

The local theatres are vital to the quality of life of all in the borough. They provide affordable healthy entertainment and enrich lives. They also provide venues for the numerous am dram companies in the area. Such theatre companies provide an artistic outlet for many in our borough. There is a large number of our youth who have found they enjoy performing and can build a good social life around this hobby.

When I was young there was a youth club on the site of the Lufe Centre, and an excellent well used library on Ridge Road. Both of these have gone now.

£5 a person per year to protect the arts in our borough and keep the children entrrtained and engaged? I'd call that a bargain.

Perhaps the Lib Dems could have saved some money by avoiding expensive questionable PR stunts, like the litter dump they lined up to be photographed in front of just before the local elections (not good value, and not good for the image of our high street!

We must also consider the arts education these theatres support in our popular schools. Many schools in the borough take pupils to shows in these theatres (may be the only theatre some get to see), and of course some of these children also participate in shows there.

This plan (with yet more shambolic and non existent "public consultation" - remember the hospital meeting in July?) is very bad news for our borough in many far reaching ways.
The local theatres are vital to the quality of life of all in the borough. They provide affordable healthy entertainment and enrich lives. They also provide venues for the numerous am dram companies in the area. Such theatre companies provide an artistic outlet for many in our borough. There is a large number of our youth who have found they enjoy performing and can build a good social life around this hobby. When I was young there was a youth club on the site of the Lufe Centre, and an excellent well used library on Ridge Road. Both of these have gone now. £5 a person per year to protect the arts in our borough and keep the children entrrtained and engaged? I'd call that a bargain. Perhaps the Lib Dems could have saved some money by avoiding expensive questionable PR stunts, like the litter dump they lined up to be photographed in front of just before the local elections (not good value, and not good for the image of our high street! We must also consider the arts education these theatres support in our popular schools. Many schools in the borough take pupils to shows in these theatres (may be the only theatre some get to see), and of course some of these children also participate in shows there. This plan (with yet more shambolic and non existent "public consultation" - remember the hospital meeting in July?) is very bad news for our borough in many far reaching ways. Bonnie Craven
  • Score: 18

11:31am Wed 27 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

Giles C wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
Giles C wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
Giles C wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
Giles C wrote:
Anyway .... The claim that 137000 people visit the life centre is absurd.. Why are they so intent on protecting something that is so obviously a drain on precious council resources?
Im sure Tony you can answer!
I am not so sure the Life Centre is being "protected" as such. But to the extent that it is in a slightly safer position than some services, it probably has to do with the 4 million pounds of lottery money which we can all agree it would be mad to have to hand back. But you know that already....
But if it costs you 15 mill over 20 years arent you better off cutting yr losses?
But who says it will cost 15 million over 20 years - who knows how much it will cost/make if it gets the better management and promotion it deserves?
It's the here and now that counts...
Also the press release talks of maintaining just the museums...what guarantee is there for the revenue for them ? Also if you take lottery or heritage funding you are committed to them for years...just like the life centre.

Where people actually create revenue we are closing down and doubtless selling for flats that will create council tax to subsidise the museums..
Go figure Resident Tony..that's the absurd logic we are dealing with here..
Well the logic is obviously so absurd, that I am lost - what NET revenue creating assets are we closing down?
The Museums are free to go into thus produce zero revenue...The theatres are hired out and thus produce a revenue...Which ones are we getting rid of?
Yes the ones that produce a revenue albeit not enough i grant you. But we will be left with the ones that have to be totally subsidised for ever and a day..
A fair point. It is not consistent that a museum gets complete subsidy, but a theatre does not (any longer) even get partial subsidy - you pay to see a West End show, but you get into the science museum free of charge.
[quote][p][bold]Giles C[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Giles C[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Giles C[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Giles C[/bold] wrote: Anyway .... The claim that 137000 people visit the life centre is absurd.. Why are they so intent on protecting something that is so obviously a drain on precious council resources? Im sure Tony you can answer![/p][/quote]I am not so sure the Life Centre is being "protected" as such. But to the extent that it is in a slightly safer position than some services, it probably has to do with the 4 million pounds of lottery money which we can all agree it would be mad to have to hand back. But you know that already....[/p][/quote]But if it costs you 15 mill over 20 years arent you better off cutting yr losses?[/p][/quote]But who says it will cost 15 million over 20 years - who knows how much it will cost/make if it gets the better management and promotion it deserves?[/p][/quote]It's the here and now that counts... Also the press release talks of maintaining just the museums...what guarantee is there for the revenue for them ? Also if you take lottery or heritage funding you are committed to them for years...just like the life centre. Where people actually create revenue we are closing down and doubtless selling for flats that will create council tax to subsidise the museums.. Go figure Resident Tony..that's the absurd logic we are dealing with here..[/p][/quote]Well the logic is obviously so absurd, that I am lost - what NET revenue creating assets are we closing down?[/p][/quote]The Museums are free to go into thus produce zero revenue...The theatres are hired out and thus produce a revenue...Which ones are we getting rid of? Yes the ones that produce a revenue albeit not enough i grant you. But we will be left with the ones that have to be totally subsidised for ever and a day..[/p][/quote]A fair point. It is not consistent that a museum gets complete subsidy, but a theatre does not (any longer) even get partial subsidy - you pay to see a West End show, but you get into the science museum free of charge. ResidentTony
  • Score: 6

11:40am Wed 27 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

Bonnie Craven wrote:
The local theatres are vital to the quality of life of all in the borough. They provide affordable healthy entertainment and enrich lives. They also provide venues for the numerous am dram companies in the area. Such theatre companies provide an artistic outlet for many in our borough. There is a large number of our youth who have found they enjoy performing and can build a good social life around this hobby.

When I was young there was a youth club on the site of the Lufe Centre, and an excellent well used library on Ridge Road. Both of these have gone now.

£5 a person per year to protect the arts in our borough and keep the children entrrtained and engaged? I'd call that a bargain.

Perhaps the Lib Dems could have saved some money by avoiding expensive questionable PR stunts, like the litter dump they lined up to be photographed in front of just before the local elections (not good value, and not good for the image of our high street!

We must also consider the arts education these theatres support in our popular schools. Many schools in the borough take pupils to shows in these theatres (may be the only theatre some get to see), and of course some of these children also participate in shows there.

This plan (with yet more shambolic and non existent "public consultation" - remember the hospital meeting in July?) is very bad news for our borough in many far reaching ways.
Superb post - couldn't agree more!
[quote][p][bold]Bonnie Craven[/bold] wrote: The local theatres are vital to the quality of life of all in the borough. They provide affordable healthy entertainment and enrich lives. They also provide venues for the numerous am dram companies in the area. Such theatre companies provide an artistic outlet for many in our borough. There is a large number of our youth who have found they enjoy performing and can build a good social life around this hobby. When I was young there was a youth club on the site of the Lufe Centre, and an excellent well used library on Ridge Road. Both of these have gone now. £5 a person per year to protect the arts in our borough and keep the children entrrtained and engaged? I'd call that a bargain. Perhaps the Lib Dems could have saved some money by avoiding expensive questionable PR stunts, like the litter dump they lined up to be photographed in front of just before the local elections (not good value, and not good for the image of our high street! We must also consider the arts education these theatres support in our popular schools. Many schools in the borough take pupils to shows in these theatres (may be the only theatre some get to see), and of course some of these children also participate in shows there. This plan (with yet more shambolic and non existent "public consultation" - remember the hospital meeting in July?) is very bad news for our borough in many far reaching ways.[/p][/quote]Superb post - couldn't agree more! ResidentTony
  • Score: 11

11:48am Wed 27 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

South Sutton Resident wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
South Sutton Resident wrote:
Maybe the Council should cut other expenses that less than 22% of residents use or appreciate; like the lesbian gay bisexual transsexual equality service, the 'garden wall' above Wilkinson, the 'shuttle' service that runs up & down the pedestrianised High Street and the waste of money that the Council authorised for the wooden sculptures and redesign of the High Street.

To suggest removing cultural aspects of Sutton seems incredibly short sighted especially when you consider the redevelopment of the lower end of Sutton.

I've lived in Sutton for over 20 years and it becomes more downmarket every year, why do the Liberal Democrats want to accelerate that by removing our theatres?

If this happens then shame on the Council.
You say you support culture. However, some of your comments come across as very uncultured, unless you think Bernard Manning is the height of culture. Just saying....
So because I dare point out that less than 22% of residents are likely to benefit from the LGBT scheme, the garden wall, the shuttle service or the redesign of the High Street I'm somehow 'uncultured'.

I suspect it's because I 'dare' to suggest that most Politically Correct arena of gay equality isn't benefiting the majority that leads you to make your comment. Show me that above 22% of Sutton residents are not heterosexual and I'll concede the point.

I don't see why people with alternative sexual lifestyles need a separate service to ensure they can access the Council services; I wasn't aware that their lifestyle meant they couldn't use normal Council services.
Sorry but your argument is based on simplistic - ie fallacious- logic: fewer than 22% of LGBT residents (not ALL residents) would have to use this service for your argument even to be coherent in itself, never mind persuasive. That said, I am glad you support the theatres - at least we can agree on that.
[quote][p][bold]South Sutton Resident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Sutton Resident[/bold] wrote: Maybe the Council should cut other expenses that less than 22% of residents use or appreciate; like the lesbian gay bisexual transsexual equality service, the 'garden wall' above Wilkinson, the 'shuttle' service that runs up & down the pedestrianised High Street and the waste of money that the Council authorised for the wooden sculptures and redesign of the High Street. To suggest removing cultural aspects of Sutton seems incredibly short sighted especially when you consider the redevelopment of the lower end of Sutton. I've lived in Sutton for over 20 years and it becomes more downmarket every year, why do the Liberal Democrats want to accelerate that by removing our theatres? If this happens then shame on the Council.[/p][/quote]You say you support culture. However, some of your comments come across as very uncultured, unless you think Bernard Manning is the height of culture. Just saying....[/p][/quote]So because I dare point out that less than 22% of residents are likely to benefit from the LGBT scheme, the garden wall, the shuttle service or the redesign of the High Street I'm somehow 'uncultured'. I suspect it's because I 'dare' to suggest that most Politically Correct arena of gay equality isn't benefiting the majority that leads you to make your comment. Show me that above 22% of Sutton residents are not heterosexual and I'll concede the point. I don't see why people with alternative sexual lifestyles need a separate service to ensure they can access the Council services; I wasn't aware that their lifestyle meant they couldn't use normal Council services.[/p][/quote]Sorry but your argument is based on simplistic - ie fallacious- logic: fewer than 22% of LGBT residents (not ALL residents) would have to use this service for your argument even to be coherent in itself, never mind persuasive. That said, I am glad you support the theatres - at least we can agree on that. ResidentTony
  • Score: 18

11:51am Wed 27 Aug 14

David7 says...

bigmacbaker wrote:
Try as I might I cannot find the Consultation on suttonsfuture.org, great!!
I’ve looked again.

Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Nowt.

What a clever way to stop anyone commenting.
[quote][p][bold]bigmacbaker[/bold] wrote: Try as I might I cannot find the Consultation on suttonsfuture.org, great!![/p][/quote]I’ve looked again. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Nowt. What a clever way to stop anyone commenting. David7
  • Score: 4

11:59am Wed 27 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

David7 wrote:
bigmacbaker wrote:
Try as I might I cannot find the Consultation on suttonsfuture.org, great!!
I’ve looked again.

Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Nowt.

What a clever way to stop anyone commenting.
I think you and/or Niki R should lead a campaign to save these theatres. I may not always agree with you, but you are both knowledgeable and make your points effectively. Someone's got do it, and the sooner the better.
[quote][p][bold]David7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigmacbaker[/bold] wrote: Try as I might I cannot find the Consultation on suttonsfuture.org, great!![/p][/quote]I’ve looked again. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Nowt. What a clever way to stop anyone commenting.[/p][/quote]I think you and/or Niki R should lead a campaign to save these theatres. I may not always agree with you, but you are both knowledgeable and make your points effectively. Someone's got do it, and the sooner the better. ResidentTony
  • Score: 7

12:09pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Niki R says...

ResidentTony wrote:
David7 wrote:
bigmacbaker wrote:
Try as I might I cannot find the Consultation on suttonsfuture.org, great!!
I’ve looked again.

Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Nowt.

What a clever way to stop anyone commenting.
I think you and/or Niki R should lead a campaign to save these theatres. I may not always agree with you, but you are both knowledgeable and make your points effectively. Someone's got do it, and the sooner the better.
Tony, whenever I speak up to use my campaigning skills, you attack me for using issues to make a political point. It's people like you that make me despair. Like it or not, these matters ARE political, because they are decisions being taken by a party that's ever been accountable locally. They are political because they are being taken without an effective challenge from the community or respect for us, thanks to the sham of a consultation that never mentioned flogging off the theatres to developers. How about, just for once, instead of sitting at your keyboard demanding that 'someone do something', you get off your rear end and BE the someone who acts?
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigmacbaker[/bold] wrote: Try as I might I cannot find the Consultation on suttonsfuture.org, great!![/p][/quote]I’ve looked again. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Nowt. What a clever way to stop anyone commenting.[/p][/quote]I think you and/or Niki R should lead a campaign to save these theatres. I may not always agree with you, but you are both knowledgeable and make your points effectively. Someone's got do it, and the sooner the better.[/p][/quote]Tony, whenever I speak up to use my campaigning skills, you attack me for using issues to make a political point. It's people like you that make me despair. Like it or not, these matters ARE political, because they are decisions being taken by a party that's ever been accountable locally. They are political because they are being taken without an effective challenge from the community or respect for us, thanks to the sham of a consultation that never mentioned flogging off the theatres to developers. How about, just for once, instead of sitting at your keyboard demanding that 'someone do something', you get off your rear end and BE the someone who acts? Niki R
  • Score: 2

12:38pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

Niki R wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
David7 wrote:
bigmacbaker wrote:
Try as I might I cannot find the Consultation on suttonsfuture.org, great!!
I’ve looked again.

Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Nowt.

What a clever way to stop anyone commenting.
I think you and/or Niki R should lead a campaign to save these theatres. I may not always agree with you, but you are both knowledgeable and make your points effectively. Someone's got do it, and the sooner the better.
Tony, whenever I speak up to use my campaigning skills, you attack me for using issues to make a political point. It's people like you that make me despair. Like it or not, these matters ARE political, because they are decisions being taken by a party that's ever been accountable locally. They are political because they are being taken without an effective challenge from the community or respect for us, thanks to the sham of a consultation that never mentioned flogging off the theatres to developers. How about, just for once, instead of sitting at your keyboard demanding that 'someone do something', you get off your rear end and BE the someone who acts?
Because - even though it pains me to say it (joke) - you are infinitely better placed, as someone who has campaigned to become a local councillor, than I am to campaign for these theatres. If you have to discomfort the Lib Dems, so be it. But, at the end of the day, any campaign will be won or lost on the extent it which it demonstrates the importance people attach to preserving our theatres. We are already up to nearly 60 comments and counting, so that is a promising start.
[quote][p][bold]Niki R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigmacbaker[/bold] wrote: Try as I might I cannot find the Consultation on suttonsfuture.org, great!![/p][/quote]I’ve looked again. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Nowt. What a clever way to stop anyone commenting.[/p][/quote]I think you and/or Niki R should lead a campaign to save these theatres. I may not always agree with you, but you are both knowledgeable and make your points effectively. Someone's got do it, and the sooner the better.[/p][/quote]Tony, whenever I speak up to use my campaigning skills, you attack me for using issues to make a political point. It's people like you that make me despair. Like it or not, these matters ARE political, because they are decisions being taken by a party that's ever been accountable locally. They are political because they are being taken without an effective challenge from the community or respect for us, thanks to the sham of a consultation that never mentioned flogging off the theatres to developers. How about, just for once, instead of sitting at your keyboard demanding that 'someone do something', you get off your rear end and BE the someone who acts?[/p][/quote]Because - even though it pains me to say it (joke) - you are infinitely better placed, as someone who has campaigned to become a local councillor, than I am to campaign for these theatres. If you have to discomfort the Lib Dems, so be it. But, at the end of the day, any campaign will be won or lost on the extent it which it demonstrates the importance people attach to preserving our theatres. We are already up to nearly 60 comments and counting, so that is a promising start. ResidentTony
  • Score: 6

1:02pm Wed 27 Aug 14

D Hoole says...

Bonnie Craven wrote:
The local theatres are vital to the quality of life of all in the borough. They provide affordable healthy entertainment and enrich lives. They also provide venues for the numerous am dram companies in the area. Such theatre companies provide an artistic outlet for many in our borough. There is a large number of our youth who have found they enjoy performing and can build a good social life around this hobby.

When I was young there was a youth club on the site of the Lufe Centre, and an excellent well used library on Ridge Road. Both of these have gone now.

£5 a person per year to protect the arts in our borough and keep the children entrrtained and engaged? I'd call that a bargain.

Perhaps the Lib Dems could have saved some money by avoiding expensive questionable PR stunts, like the litter dump they lined up to be photographed in front of just before the local elections (not good value, and not good for the image of our high street!

We must also consider the arts education these theatres support in our popular schools. Many schools in the borough take pupils to shows in these theatres (may be the only theatre some get to see), and of course some of these children also participate in shows there.

This plan (with yet more shambolic and non existent "public consultation" - remember the hospital meeting in July?) is very bad news for our borough in many far reaching ways.
The subsidy isn't '£5 per person per year'. The article at the top says £5.65 for every person who uses them . I.E. EVERY visit. This is presumably averaged over the eight venues in which case we can't say how much each theatre visit is subsidised. I think we can say that someone who makes multiple visits to any of the eight venues is being subsidised EVERY time they go. Those who don't use these venues could feel aggrieved at continuing to help fund loss- making venues . David 7 said in an early post that the subsidy to the Life Centre is £19 per visit.
I would agree that (political) bickering isn't likely to help. Perhaps this thread could become the start of a campaign group to try to save one or more of these venues.
[quote][p][bold]Bonnie Craven[/bold] wrote: The local theatres are vital to the quality of life of all in the borough. They provide affordable healthy entertainment and enrich lives. They also provide venues for the numerous am dram companies in the area. Such theatre companies provide an artistic outlet for many in our borough. There is a large number of our youth who have found they enjoy performing and can build a good social life around this hobby. When I was young there was a youth club on the site of the Lufe Centre, and an excellent well used library on Ridge Road. Both of these have gone now. £5 a person per year to protect the arts in our borough and keep the children entrrtained and engaged? I'd call that a bargain. Perhaps the Lib Dems could have saved some money by avoiding expensive questionable PR stunts, like the litter dump they lined up to be photographed in front of just before the local elections (not good value, and not good for the image of our high street! We must also consider the arts education these theatres support in our popular schools. Many schools in the borough take pupils to shows in these theatres (may be the only theatre some get to see), and of course some of these children also participate in shows there. This plan (with yet more shambolic and non existent "public consultation" - remember the hospital meeting in July?) is very bad news for our borough in many far reaching ways.[/p][/quote]The subsidy isn't '£5 per person per year'. The article at the top says £5.65 for every person who uses them [ the eight venues, three of which are under threat]. I.E. EVERY visit. This is presumably averaged over the eight venues in which case we can't say how much each theatre visit is subsidised. I think we can say that someone who makes multiple visits to any of the eight venues is being subsidised EVERY time they go. Those who don't use these venues could feel aggrieved at continuing to help fund loss- making venues . David 7 said in an early post that the subsidy to the Life Centre is £19 per visit. I would agree that (political) bickering isn't likely to help. Perhaps this thread could become the start of a campaign group to try to save one or more of these venues. D Hoole
  • Score: 3

1:22pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

D Hoole wrote:
Bonnie Craven wrote:
The local theatres are vital to the quality of life of all in the borough. They provide affordable healthy entertainment and enrich lives. They also provide venues for the numerous am dram companies in the area. Such theatre companies provide an artistic outlet for many in our borough. There is a large number of our youth who have found they enjoy performing and can build a good social life around this hobby.

When I was young there was a youth club on the site of the Lufe Centre, and an excellent well used library on Ridge Road. Both of these have gone now.

£5 a person per year to protect the arts in our borough and keep the children entrrtained and engaged? I'd call that a bargain.

Perhaps the Lib Dems could have saved some money by avoiding expensive questionable PR stunts, like the litter dump they lined up to be photographed in front of just before the local elections (not good value, and not good for the image of our high street!

We must also consider the arts education these theatres support in our popular schools. Many schools in the borough take pupils to shows in these theatres (may be the only theatre some get to see), and of course some of these children also participate in shows there.

This plan (with yet more shambolic and non existent "public consultation" - remember the hospital meeting in July?) is very bad news for our borough in many far reaching ways.
The subsidy isn't '£5 per person per year'. The article at the top says £5.65 for every person who uses them . I.E. EVERY visit. This is presumably averaged over the eight venues in which case we can't say how much each theatre visit is subsidised. I think we can say that someone who makes multiple visits to any of the eight venues is being subsidised EVERY time they go. Those who don't use these venues could feel aggrieved at continuing to help fund loss- making venues . David 7 said in an early post that the subsidy to the Life Centre is £19 per visit.
I would agree that (political) bickering isn't likely to help. Perhaps this thread could become the start of a campaign group to try to save one or more of these venues.
I know the two metrics are different; however, the number of individual theatre attendances (not people - as some will go more than once a year) probably equates quiet closely to the number of council tax payers (ie paying households, not people) in the borough. If anything, the annual cost per council tax payer would be less than the £5.65 quoted. Also, the more people who go, the lower the cost per person. I am no accountant, but this just seems like common sense. Correct me if I am wrong...
[quote][p][bold]D Hoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bonnie Craven[/bold] wrote: The local theatres are vital to the quality of life of all in the borough. They provide affordable healthy entertainment and enrich lives. They also provide venues for the numerous am dram companies in the area. Such theatre companies provide an artistic outlet for many in our borough. There is a large number of our youth who have found they enjoy performing and can build a good social life around this hobby. When I was young there was a youth club on the site of the Lufe Centre, and an excellent well used library on Ridge Road. Both of these have gone now. £5 a person per year to protect the arts in our borough and keep the children entrrtained and engaged? I'd call that a bargain. Perhaps the Lib Dems could have saved some money by avoiding expensive questionable PR stunts, like the litter dump they lined up to be photographed in front of just before the local elections (not good value, and not good for the image of our high street! We must also consider the arts education these theatres support in our popular schools. Many schools in the borough take pupils to shows in these theatres (may be the only theatre some get to see), and of course some of these children also participate in shows there. This plan (with yet more shambolic and non existent "public consultation" - remember the hospital meeting in July?) is very bad news for our borough in many far reaching ways.[/p][/quote]The subsidy isn't '£5 per person per year'. The article at the top says £5.65 for every person who uses them [ the eight venues, three of which are under threat]. I.E. EVERY visit. This is presumably averaged over the eight venues in which case we can't say how much each theatre visit is subsidised. I think we can say that someone who makes multiple visits to any of the eight venues is being subsidised EVERY time they go. Those who don't use these venues could feel aggrieved at continuing to help fund loss- making venues . David 7 said in an early post that the subsidy to the Life Centre is £19 per visit. I would agree that (political) bickering isn't likely to help. Perhaps this thread could become the start of a campaign group to try to save one or more of these venues.[/p][/quote]I know the two metrics are different; however, the number of individual theatre attendances (not people - as some will go more than once a year) probably equates quiet closely to the number of council tax payers (ie paying households, not people) in the borough. If anything, the annual cost per council tax payer would be less than the £5.65 quoted. Also, the more people who go, the lower the cost per person. I am no accountant, but this just seems like common sense. Correct me if I am wrong... ResidentTony
  • Score: 4

2:02pm Wed 27 Aug 14

David7 says...

David7 wrote:
bigmacbaker wrote:
Try as I might I cannot find the Consultation on suttonsfuture.org, great!!
I’ve looked again.

Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Nowt.

What a clever way to stop anyone commenting.
It’s worth pointing out that the author has added significant chunks to the story since it was first published, so some of the early comments should be viewed in that light, as more info became available.

So now we know that the consultation begins on 9 September.

Please also note, good citizens, that normally the council allows about three months for consultations – see here:

http://www.opinionsu
ite.com/sutton/consu
ltation_finder

But THIS consultation closes on 3 October according to the report – giving a mere FOUR WEEKS rather than three months for input.

It’s likely that the council has already written the press release announcing the closures in November. There is no time in this process for anything other than adopting the recommendations. It’s a done deal. The bulldozers will be in place the day after the decision is made (metaphorically speaking, I hope).

That’s why I say that this council is trying to undermine democracy while at the same time using its expensively-funded communications/PR department to claim just the opposite. They are cutting down on the timescales to suit themselves, not the residents.

If it hadn’t been for the sharp eyes of an opposition councillor, I doubt this topic would have come to light much before the committee meeting on September 4th. But we all need sharp eyes and quick responses if we’re to oppose this.

Taking away community resources like theatres and (deliberately-run down) public halls does not sit comfortably with the council’s promise ‘to build safe, strong and healthy communities’. It will weaken our communities significantly and send vital custom and business elsewhere.

Re Tony’s excellent comments on beginning anti-closure campaigns – there are some remarkable people within the many arts and drama groups in the borough who have excellent contacts and skills, and would do a very good job. Hopefully they’ll latch on and get going soon – I know some mutterings are afoot.
[quote][p][bold]David7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigmacbaker[/bold] wrote: Try as I might I cannot find the Consultation on suttonsfuture.org, great!![/p][/quote]I’ve looked again. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Nowt. What a clever way to stop anyone commenting.[/p][/quote]It’s worth pointing out that the author has added significant chunks to the story since it was first published, so some of the early comments should be viewed in that light, as more info became available. So now we know that the consultation begins on 9 September. Please also note, good citizens, that normally the council allows about three months for consultations – see here: http://www.opinionsu ite.com/sutton/consu ltation_finder But THIS consultation closes on 3 October according to the report – giving a mere FOUR WEEKS rather than three months for input. It’s likely that the council has already written the press release announcing the closures in November. There is no time in this process for anything other than adopting the recommendations. It’s a done deal. The bulldozers will be in place the day after the decision is made (metaphorically speaking, I hope). That’s why I say that this council is trying to undermine democracy while at the same time using its expensively-funded communications/PR department to claim just the opposite. They are cutting down on the timescales to suit themselves, not the residents. If it hadn’t been for the sharp eyes of an opposition councillor, I doubt this topic would have come to light much before the committee meeting on September 4th. But we all need sharp eyes and quick responses if we’re to oppose this. Taking away community resources like theatres and (deliberately-run down) public halls does not sit comfortably with the council’s promise ‘to build safe, strong and healthy communities’. It will weaken our communities significantly and send vital custom and business elsewhere. Re Tony’s excellent comments on beginning anti-closure campaigns – there are some remarkable people within the many arts and drama groups in the borough who have excellent contacts and skills, and would do a very good job. Hopefully they’ll latch on and get going soon – I know some mutterings are afoot. David7
  • Score: 12

6:02pm Wed 27 Aug 14

South Sutton Resident says...

ResidentTony wrote:
South Sutton Resident wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
South Sutton Resident wrote:
Maybe the Council should cut other expenses that less than 22% of residents use or appreciate; like the lesbian gay bisexual transsexual equality service, the 'garden wall' above Wilkinson, the 'shuttle' service that runs up & down the pedestrianised High Street and the waste of money that the Council authorised for the wooden sculptures and redesign of the High Street.

To suggest removing cultural aspects of Sutton seems incredibly short sighted especially when you consider the redevelopment of the lower end of Sutton.

I've lived in Sutton for over 20 years and it becomes more downmarket every year, why do the Liberal Democrats want to accelerate that by removing our theatres?

If this happens then shame on the Council.
You say you support culture. However, some of your comments come across as very uncultured, unless you think Bernard Manning is the height of culture. Just saying....
So because I dare point out that less than 22% of residents are likely to benefit from the LGBT scheme, the garden wall, the shuttle service or the redesign of the High Street I'm somehow 'uncultured'.

I suspect it's because I 'dare' to suggest that most Politically Correct arena of gay equality isn't benefiting the majority that leads you to make your comment. Show me that above 22% of Sutton residents are not heterosexual and I'll concede the point.

I don't see why people with alternative sexual lifestyles need a separate service to ensure they can access the Council services; I wasn't aware that their lifestyle meant they couldn't use normal Council services.
Sorry but your argument is based on simplistic - ie fallacious- logic: fewer than 22% of LGBT residents (not ALL residents) would have to use this service for your argument even to be coherent in itself, never mind persuasive. That said, I am glad you support the theatres - at least we can agree on that.
The article said "only about 22 per cent of the borough use them", not "22% of theatre going residents use them" so your interpretation of my LGBT comment shows you are either trying to 'spin' the figures your way or you simply don't understand what was written.

Sutton has a population of a little under 200,000 people (I believe) which means that (according to the 22% figure) around 44,000 use the theatres, which mean that 44,000 residents 'need/enjoy/benefit' from the theatres.

Assuming the oft quoted figure of 8% of the population being in the LGBT community then in Sutton that would equate to some 16,000 people AND even if we believe they all 'need/use/benefit' from the Sutton funded scheme I mentioned that is still 28,000 less residents than are attending theatres.

I too am glad that we both agree the theatres need supporting although your strange idea that I must enjoy Bernard Manning and be a UKIP supporter simply because I talk sense does make me wonder where your political beliefs and entertainment sources are drawn from.
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Sutton Resident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Sutton Resident[/bold] wrote: Maybe the Council should cut other expenses that less than 22% of residents use or appreciate; like the lesbian gay bisexual transsexual equality service, the 'garden wall' above Wilkinson, the 'shuttle' service that runs up & down the pedestrianised High Street and the waste of money that the Council authorised for the wooden sculptures and redesign of the High Street. To suggest removing cultural aspects of Sutton seems incredibly short sighted especially when you consider the redevelopment of the lower end of Sutton. I've lived in Sutton for over 20 years and it becomes more downmarket every year, why do the Liberal Democrats want to accelerate that by removing our theatres? If this happens then shame on the Council.[/p][/quote]You say you support culture. However, some of your comments come across as very uncultured, unless you think Bernard Manning is the height of culture. Just saying....[/p][/quote]So because I dare point out that less than 22% of residents are likely to benefit from the LGBT scheme, the garden wall, the shuttle service or the redesign of the High Street I'm somehow 'uncultured'. I suspect it's because I 'dare' to suggest that most Politically Correct arena of gay equality isn't benefiting the majority that leads you to make your comment. Show me that above 22% of Sutton residents are not heterosexual and I'll concede the point. I don't see why people with alternative sexual lifestyles need a separate service to ensure they can access the Council services; I wasn't aware that their lifestyle meant they couldn't use normal Council services.[/p][/quote]Sorry but your argument is based on simplistic - ie fallacious- logic: fewer than 22% of LGBT residents (not ALL residents) would have to use this service for your argument even to be coherent in itself, never mind persuasive. That said, I am glad you support the theatres - at least we can agree on that.[/p][/quote]The article said "only about 22 per cent of the borough use them", not "22% of theatre going residents use them" so your interpretation of my LGBT comment shows you are either trying to 'spin' the figures your way or you simply don't understand what was written. Sutton has a population of a little under 200,000 people (I believe) which means that (according to the 22% figure) around 44,000 use the theatres, which mean that 44,000 residents 'need/enjoy/benefit' from the theatres. Assuming the oft quoted figure of 8% of the population being in the LGBT community then in Sutton that would equate to some 16,000 people AND even if we believe they all 'need/use/benefit' from the Sutton funded scheme I mentioned that is still 28,000 less residents than are attending theatres. I too am glad that we both agree the theatres need supporting although your strange idea that I must enjoy Bernard Manning and be a UKIP supporter simply because I talk sense does make me wonder where your political beliefs and entertainment sources are drawn from. South Sutton Resident
  • Score: -14

7:36pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

South Sutton Resident wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
South Sutton Resident wrote:
ResidentTony wrote:
South Sutton Resident wrote:
Maybe the Council should cut other expenses that less than 22% of residents use or appreciate; like the lesbian gay bisexual transsexual equality service, the 'garden wall' above Wilkinson, the 'shuttle' service that runs up & down the pedestrianised High Street and the waste of money that the Council authorised for the wooden sculptures and redesign of the High Street.

To suggest removing cultural aspects of Sutton seems incredibly short sighted especially when you consider the redevelopment of the lower end of Sutton.

I've lived in Sutton for over 20 years and it becomes more downmarket every year, why do the Liberal Democrats want to accelerate that by removing our theatres?

If this happens then shame on the Council.
You say you support culture. However, some of your comments come across as very uncultured, unless you think Bernard Manning is the height of culture. Just saying....
So because I dare point out that less than 22% of residents are likely to benefit from the LGBT scheme, the garden wall, the shuttle service or the redesign of the High Street I'm somehow 'uncultured'.

I suspect it's because I 'dare' to suggest that most Politically Correct arena of gay equality isn't benefiting the majority that leads you to make your comment. Show me that above 22% of Sutton residents are not heterosexual and I'll concede the point.

I don't see why people with alternative sexual lifestyles need a separate service to ensure they can access the Council services; I wasn't aware that their lifestyle meant they couldn't use normal Council services.
Sorry but your argument is based on simplistic - ie fallacious- logic: fewer than 22% of LGBT residents (not ALL residents) would have to use this service for your argument even to be coherent in itself, never mind persuasive. That said, I am glad you support the theatres - at least we can agree on that.
The article said "only about 22 per cent of the borough use them", not "22% of theatre going residents use them" so your interpretation of my LGBT comment shows you are either trying to 'spin' the figures your way or you simply don't understand what was written.

Sutton has a population of a little under 200,000 people (I believe) which means that (according to the 22% figure) around 44,000 use the theatres, which mean that 44,000 residents 'need/enjoy/benefit' from the theatres.

Assuming the oft quoted figure of 8% of the population being in the LGBT community then in Sutton that would equate to some 16,000 people AND even if we believe they all 'need/use/benefit' from the Sutton funded scheme I mentioned that is still 28,000 less residents than are attending theatres.

I too am glad that we both agree the theatres need supporting although your strange idea that I must enjoy Bernard Manning and be a UKIP supporter simply because I talk sense does make me wonder where your political beliefs and entertainment sources are drawn from.
At the risk of prolonging discussion of a subject which is not directly related to the article, I will just add the basis for my "spin". If a service is only intended for at 8% (to use your figure) of the population, then, all other things being equal, it is only likely to require 8% of the resources.
(Who knows, maybe a very large proportion of that 8% is using the service.) By contrast all residents are potential users of the local theatres; and as David7 pointed out, 22% is actually a very good usage rate.
As you may have noticed, I challenge what I consider to be nonsense/lack of logic wherever I find it, and I am afraid your comment was the most egregious example I found today. If we are to save these theatres, we need to use solid arguments, and not muddy the water with specious, illogical points such as yours. PS I much prefer the Goon Show, of which Sir Harry Secombe was a member, to Bernard Manning.
[quote][p][bold]South Sutton Resident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Sutton Resident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Sutton Resident[/bold] wrote: Maybe the Council should cut other expenses that less than 22% of residents use or appreciate; like the lesbian gay bisexual transsexual equality service, the 'garden wall' above Wilkinson, the 'shuttle' service that runs up & down the pedestrianised High Street and the waste of money that the Council authorised for the wooden sculptures and redesign of the High Street. To suggest removing cultural aspects of Sutton seems incredibly short sighted especially when you consider the redevelopment of the lower end of Sutton. I've lived in Sutton for over 20 years and it becomes more downmarket every year, why do the Liberal Democrats want to accelerate that by removing our theatres? If this happens then shame on the Council.[/p][/quote]You say you support culture. However, some of your comments come across as very uncultured, unless you think Bernard Manning is the height of culture. Just saying....[/p][/quote]So because I dare point out that less than 22% of residents are likely to benefit from the LGBT scheme, the garden wall, the shuttle service or the redesign of the High Street I'm somehow 'uncultured'. I suspect it's because I 'dare' to suggest that most Politically Correct arena of gay equality isn't benefiting the majority that leads you to make your comment. Show me that above 22% of Sutton residents are not heterosexual and I'll concede the point. I don't see why people with alternative sexual lifestyles need a separate service to ensure they can access the Council services; I wasn't aware that their lifestyle meant they couldn't use normal Council services.[/p][/quote]Sorry but your argument is based on simplistic - ie fallacious- logic: fewer than 22% of LGBT residents (not ALL residents) would have to use this service for your argument even to be coherent in itself, never mind persuasive. That said, I am glad you support the theatres - at least we can agree on that.[/p][/quote]The article said "only about 22 per cent of the borough use them", not "22% of theatre going residents use them" so your interpretation of my LGBT comment shows you are either trying to 'spin' the figures your way or you simply don't understand what was written. Sutton has a population of a little under 200,000 people (I believe) which means that (according to the 22% figure) around 44,000 use the theatres, which mean that 44,000 residents 'need/enjoy/benefit' from the theatres. Assuming the oft quoted figure of 8% of the population being in the LGBT community then in Sutton that would equate to some 16,000 people AND even if we believe they all 'need/use/benefit' from the Sutton funded scheme I mentioned that is still 28,000 less residents than are attending theatres. I too am glad that we both agree the theatres need supporting although your strange idea that I must enjoy Bernard Manning and be a UKIP supporter simply because I talk sense does make me wonder where your political beliefs and entertainment sources are drawn from.[/p][/quote]At the risk of prolonging discussion of a subject which is not directly related to the article, I will just add the basis for my "spin". If a service is only intended for at 8% (to use your figure) of the population, then, all other things being equal, it is only likely to require 8% of the resources. (Who knows, maybe a very large proportion of that 8% is using the service.) By contrast all residents are potential users of the local theatres; and as David7 pointed out, 22% is actually a very good usage rate. As you may have noticed, I challenge what I consider to be nonsense/lack of logic wherever I find it, and I am afraid your comment was the most egregious example I found today. If we are to save these theatres, we need to use solid arguments, and not muddy the water with specious, illogical points such as yours. PS I much prefer the Goon Show, of which Sir Harry Secombe was a member, to Bernard Manning. ResidentTony
  • Score: 12

7:46pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

For anyone thinking about campaigning - and hopefully that is many of you - this link to an article about the 2002 "Save our Secombe" campaign will be of interest. Pity we have to go through this process every 12 years to keep theatre alive in the borough....
For anyone thinking about campaigning - and hopefully that is many of you - this link to an article about the 2002 "Save our Secombe" campaign will be of interest. Pity we have to go through this process every 12 years to keep theatre alive in the borough.... ResidentTony
  • Score: 7

9:21pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Paul Scully says...

The comments have been interesting to follow and the fact that it has elicited so much debate already shows how pushing through a consultation so quickly in the midst of an overall consultation about the targeted £40m cuts is not in the interests of residents.

The theatres may not be paying their way in full but there must be more that can be done in looking at how they are run and in particular marketed, before pushing them to the front of the council cuts. The fact that 22% of the borough use the theatres, deserves better than a disparaging 'only' prefacing the quote. There are a substantial number of residents that do use the facilities and it is important that we keep that in mind before taking an axe to the arts in the borough.

I can't see anything wrong in mentioning parking and green garden waste in the comments, ResidentTony. A proposal for the reintroduction of a charge for green garden waste collection is to be discussed by the council next Thursday. They even have the gall to be planning a charge 168% higher than the one that was rejected by residents a few years ago, this time £59 for yet another wheelie bin. These examples show the direction that the council are taking along where the theatres are but one, albeit big cut. Surely we should have our say first before the council starts slashing?

PS the LGBT forum was set up by one dedicated individual in the face of apathy by the council with a £30 grant. I'm not aware that the council have put any cash in but I may be wrong.
The comments have been interesting to follow and the fact that it has elicited so much debate already shows how pushing through a consultation so quickly in the midst of an overall consultation about the targeted £40m cuts is not in the interests of residents. The theatres may not be paying their way in full but there must be more that can be done in looking at how they are run and in particular marketed, before pushing them to the front of the council cuts. The fact that 22% of the borough use the theatres, deserves better than a disparaging 'only' prefacing the quote. There are a substantial number of residents that do use the facilities and it is important that we keep that in mind before taking an axe to the arts in the borough. I can't see anything wrong in mentioning parking and green garden waste in the comments, ResidentTony. A proposal for the reintroduction of a charge for green garden waste collection is to be discussed by the council next Thursday. They even have the gall to be planning a charge 168% higher than the one that was rejected by residents a few years ago, this time £59 for yet another wheelie bin. These examples show the direction that the council are taking along where the theatres are but one, albeit big cut. Surely we should have our say first before the council starts slashing? PS the LGBT forum was set up by one dedicated individual in the face of apathy by the council with a £30 grant. I'm not aware that the council have put any cash in but I may be wrong. Paul Scully
  • Score: 14

9:44pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

ResidentTony wrote:
For anyone thinking about campaigning - and hopefully that is many of you - this link to an article about the 2002 "Save our Secombe" campaign will be of interest. Pity we have to go through this process every 12 years to keep theatre alive in the borough....
Here are the missing links
http://www.suttongua
rdian.co.uk/archive/
2002/11/29/6281133.S
ecombe__reasonable_a
rgument_shouted_down
/

http://www.suttongua
rdian.co.uk/archive/
2002/11/15/6284621.C
onservative_body_s__
underhand__campaigni
ng_methods/

http://www.suttongua
rdian.co.uk/archive/
2002/11/29/6281370.M
eeting_was_party_pol
itical/
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: For anyone thinking about campaigning - and hopefully that is many of you - this link to an article about the 2002 "Save our Secombe" campaign will be of interest. Pity we have to go through this process every 12 years to keep theatre alive in the borough....[/p][/quote]Here are the missing links http://www.suttongua rdian.co.uk/archive/ 2002/11/29/6281133.S ecombe__reasonable_a rgument_shouted_down / http://www.suttongua rdian.co.uk/archive/ 2002/11/15/6284621.C onservative_body_s__ underhand__campaigni ng_methods/ http://www.suttongua rdian.co.uk/archive/ 2002/11/29/6281370.M eeting_was_party_pol itical/ ResidentTony
  • Score: 8

10:22pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Wait right there says...

So even if all 8 were closed Sutton would only save 1.78 million a year ( + a bit more in regard to staff, maintenance and realising the asset value now) that really puts the fact "as the council looks to cut £40m from its budget over the next five years." into perspective. As a Sutton resident I hope that the 54 Councillors can agree that a Council Tax rise will help and voting against will come to be seen as political career making.
So even if all 8 were closed Sutton would only save 1.78 million a year ( + a bit more in regard to staff, maintenance and realising the asset value now) that really puts the fact "as the council looks to cut £40m from its budget over the next five years." into perspective. As a Sutton resident I hope that the 54 Councillors can agree that a Council Tax rise will help and voting against will come to be seen as political career making. Wait right there
  • Score: 6

7:28am Thu 28 Aug 14

Giles C says...

Wait right there wrote:
So even if all 8 were closed Sutton would only save 1.78 million a year ( + a bit more in regard to staff, maintenance and realising the asset value now) that really puts the fact "as the council looks to cut £40m from its budget over the next five years." into perspective. As a Sutton resident I hope that the 54 Councillors can agree that a Council Tax rise will help and voting against will come to be seen as political career making.
Remember it's £40 mill over 5 years so cutting around £2 mill in yr 1 saves £10 mill over the period which is a quarter of what they require....
That's why it looks an option..
[quote][p][bold]Wait right there[/bold] wrote: So even if all 8 were closed Sutton would only save 1.78 million a year ( + a bit more in regard to staff, maintenance and realising the asset value now) that really puts the fact "as the council looks to cut £40m from its budget over the next five years." into perspective. As a Sutton resident I hope that the 54 Councillors can agree that a Council Tax rise will help and voting against will come to be seen as political career making.[/p][/quote]Remember it's £40 mill over 5 years so cutting around £2 mill in yr 1 saves £10 mill over the period which is a quarter of what they require.... That's why it looks an option.. Giles C
  • Score: -2

11:01am Thu 28 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

Taking the figures as they are presented in the article it seems the eight venues cost the council a NET £1.78m per year. If that is £5.65 per attendance, that would imply over 300,000 attendances a year. 22% apparently use the venues, ie about 40,000 borough residents. So the implication is that the 22% go an average of eight times a year each.

Further, I wonder how they arrive at the £2.2m gross (£1.78m net) figure. And would it really ALL be saved if all the venues were sold?

Also, I think a very thorough impact assessment needs to be done, and it needs to make an estimate of the cultural/educational
/reputational loss that closure would imply. This needs to be set against the direct savings.
Taking the figures as they are presented in the article it seems the eight venues cost the council a NET £1.78m per year. If that is £5.65 per attendance, that would imply over 300,000 attendances a year. 22% apparently use the venues, ie about 40,000 borough residents. So the implication is that the 22% go an average of eight times a year each. Further, I wonder how they arrive at the £2.2m gross (£1.78m net) figure. And would it really ALL be saved if all the venues were sold? Also, I think a very thorough impact assessment needs to be done, and it needs to make an estimate of the cultural/educational /reputational loss that closure would imply. This needs to be set against the direct savings. ResidentTony
  • Score: 6

11:36am Thu 28 Aug 14

Niki R says...

Why is nobody asking how many people visit the theatres from outside of Sutton?
Why is nobody asking how many people visit the theatres from outside of Sutton? Niki R
  • Score: 8

12:13pm Thu 28 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

ResidentTony wrote:
Taking the figures as they are presented in the article it seems the eight venues cost the council a NET £1.78m per year. If that is £5.65 per attendance, that would imply over 300,000 attendances a year. 22% apparently use the venues, ie about 40,000 borough residents. So the implication is that the 22% go an average of eight times a year each.

Further, I wonder how they arrive at the £2.2m gross (£1.78m net) figure. And would it really ALL be saved if all the venues were sold?

Also, I think a very thorough impact assessment needs to be done, and it needs to make an estimate of the cultural/educational

/reputational loss that closure would imply. This needs to be set against the direct savings.
This was calculated on the basis that only people from the borough use the venue; however, there are no doubt a number of patrons from outside the borough, so the GRAND total of annual patrons is therefore higher than the 40,000 estimate; and the number of visits per year per person somewhat lower than the very high eight per year estimate above.

Caveat - all these estimates assume the original figures in the article were soundly derived.
[quote][p][bold]ResidentTony[/bold] wrote: Taking the figures as they are presented in the article it seems the eight venues cost the council a NET £1.78m per year. If that is £5.65 per attendance, that would imply over 300,000 attendances a year. 22% apparently use the venues, ie about 40,000 borough residents. So the implication is that the 22% go an average of eight times a year each. Further, I wonder how they arrive at the £2.2m gross (£1.78m net) figure. And would it really ALL be saved if all the venues were sold? Also, I think a very thorough impact assessment needs to be done, and it needs to make an estimate of the cultural/educational /reputational loss that closure would imply. This needs to be set against the direct savings.[/p][/quote]This was calculated on the basis that only people from the borough use the venue; however, there are no doubt a number of patrons from outside the borough, so the GRAND total of annual patrons is therefore higher than the 40,000 estimate; and the number of visits per year per person somewhat lower than the very high eight per year estimate above. Caveat - all these estimates assume the original figures in the article were soundly derived. ResidentTony
  • Score: 2

12:24pm Thu 28 Aug 14

Paul Scully says...

Wait right there wrote:
So even if all 8 were closed Sutton would only save 1.78 million a year ( + a bit more in regard to staff, maintenance and realising the asset value now) that really puts the fact "as the council looks to cut £40m from its budget over the next five years." into perspective. As a Sutton resident I hope that the 54 Councillors can agree that a Council Tax rise will help and voting against will come to be seen as political career making.
Just to put a bit of context to the figure, the net £1.78m a year to cover the cost equates to a 2.3% increase in council tax which would be above the 2% figure that triggers a borough-wide referendum.
[quote][p][bold]Wait right there[/bold] wrote: So even if all 8 were closed Sutton would only save 1.78 million a year ( + a bit more in regard to staff, maintenance and realising the asset value now) that really puts the fact "as the council looks to cut £40m from its budget over the next five years." into perspective. As a Sutton resident I hope that the 54 Councillors can agree that a Council Tax rise will help and voting against will come to be seen as political career making.[/p][/quote]Just to put a bit of context to the figure, the net £1.78m a year to cover the cost equates to a 2.3% increase in council tax which would be above the 2% figure that triggers a borough-wide referendum. Paul Scully
  • Score: 2

1:35pm Thu 28 Aug 14

David7 says...

Paul Scully wrote:
Wait right there wrote:
So even if all 8 were closed Sutton would only save 1.78 million a year ( + a bit more in regard to staff, maintenance and realising the asset value now) that really puts the fact "as the council looks to cut £40m from its budget over the next five years." into perspective. As a Sutton resident I hope that the 54 Councillors can agree that a Council Tax rise will help and voting against will come to be seen as political career making.
Just to put a bit of context to the figure, the net £1.78m a year to cover the cost equates to a 2.3% increase in council tax which would be above the 2% figure that triggers a borough-wide referendum.
...and the cost of the referendum would probably add another couple of percentage points!
[quote][p][bold]Paul Scully[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wait right there[/bold] wrote: So even if all 8 were closed Sutton would only save 1.78 million a year ( + a bit more in regard to staff, maintenance and realising the asset value now) that really puts the fact "as the council looks to cut £40m from its budget over the next five years." into perspective. As a Sutton resident I hope that the 54 Councillors can agree that a Council Tax rise will help and voting against will come to be seen as political career making.[/p][/quote]Just to put a bit of context to the figure, the net £1.78m a year to cover the cost equates to a 2.3% increase in council tax which would be above the 2% figure that triggers a borough-wide referendum.[/p][/quote]...and the cost of the referendum would probably add another couple of percentage points! David7
  • Score: 2

2:29pm Thu 28 Aug 14

SomethingWonderful says...

Resident Tony! You do make me laugh!!

You said, "PS If any Lib Dem councillors or MPs are reading this, please reconsider these worrying proposals." Should that not read, "Why haste thou forsaken me?"

Your trolling of contributors, panicked insults and attempts to depoliticise this announcement go far beyond your usual disingenuousness!

This is the standard fare of deceit, contempt and ineptitude from this council that many of us on here have been desperate to highlight over the last few years.

On the plus side, it's been great watching you wriggle...

x
Resident Tony! You do make me laugh!! You said, "PS If any Lib Dem councillors or MPs are reading this, please reconsider these worrying proposals." Should that not read, "Why haste thou forsaken me?" Your trolling of contributors, panicked insults and attempts to depoliticise this announcement go far beyond your usual disingenuousness! This is the standard fare of deceit, contempt and ineptitude from this council that many of us on here have been desperate to highlight over the last few years. On the plus side, it's been great watching you wriggle... x SomethingWonderful
  • Score: -1

2:45pm Thu 28 Aug 14

Giles C says...

Paul Scully wrote:
Wait right there wrote:
So even if all 8 were closed Sutton would only save 1.78 million a year ( + a bit more in regard to staff, maintenance and realising the asset value now) that really puts the fact "as the council looks to cut £40m from its budget over the next five years." into perspective. As a Sutton resident I hope that the 54 Councillors can agree that a Council Tax rise will help and voting against will come to be seen as political career making.
Just to put a bit of context to the figure, the net £1.78m a year to cover the cost equates to a 2.3% increase in council tax which would be above the 2% figure that triggers a borough-wide referendum.
They will go for a 2% council tax increase anyway.....
[quote][p][bold]Paul Scully[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wait right there[/bold] wrote: So even if all 8 were closed Sutton would only save 1.78 million a year ( + a bit more in regard to staff, maintenance and realising the asset value now) that really puts the fact "as the council looks to cut £40m from its budget over the next five years." into perspective. As a Sutton resident I hope that the 54 Councillors can agree that a Council Tax rise will help and voting against will come to be seen as political career making.[/p][/quote]Just to put a bit of context to the figure, the net £1.78m a year to cover the cost equates to a 2.3% increase in council tax which would be above the 2% figure that triggers a borough-wide referendum.[/p][/quote]They will go for a 2% council tax increase anyway..... Giles C
  • Score: 0

3:24pm Thu 28 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

SomethingWonderful wrote:
Resident Tony! You do make me laugh!!

You said, "PS If any Lib Dem councillors or MPs are reading this, please reconsider these worrying proposals." Should that not read, "Why haste thou forsaken me?"

Your trolling of contributors, panicked insults and attempts to depoliticise this announcement go far beyond your usual disingenuousness!

This is the standard fare of deceit, contempt and ineptitude from this council that many of us on here have been desperate to highlight over the last few years.

On the plus side, it's been great watching you wriggle...

x
So you are not trolling me..........?
[quote][p][bold]SomethingWonderful[/bold] wrote: Resident Tony! You do make me laugh!! You said, "PS If any Lib Dem councillors or MPs are reading this, please reconsider these worrying proposals." Should that not read, "Why haste thou forsaken me?" Your trolling of contributors, panicked insults and attempts to depoliticise this announcement go far beyond your usual disingenuousness! This is the standard fare of deceit, contempt and ineptitude from this council that many of us on here have been desperate to highlight over the last few years. On the plus side, it's been great watching you wriggle... x[/p][/quote]So you are not trolling me..........? ResidentTony
  • Score: 1

6:29pm Thu 28 Aug 14

netty061 says...

Niki R wrote:
Why is nobody asking how many people visit the theatres from outside of Sutton?
We know they do as many of our (Sutton Theatre Company) audience come from outside Sutton - we have a mailing list full of people outside the borough. Also, our own friends and family don't all live in the Sutton Borough. Incidentally, our next show is "Our House" in October if anyone is interested!!! Just saying.
[quote][p][bold]Niki R[/bold] wrote: Why is nobody asking how many people visit the theatres from outside of Sutton?[/p][/quote]We know they do as many of our (Sutton Theatre Company) audience come from outside Sutton - we have a mailing list full of people outside the borough. Also, our own friends and family don't all live in the Sutton Borough. Incidentally, our next show is "Our House" in October if anyone is interested!!! Just saying. netty061
  • Score: 9

1:38pm Fri 29 Aug 14

Niki R says...

netty061 wrote:
Niki R wrote:
Why is nobody asking how many people visit the theatres from outside of Sutton?
We know they do as many of our (Sutton Theatre Company) audience come from outside Sutton - we have a mailing list full of people outside the borough. Also, our own friends and family don't all live in the Sutton Borough. Incidentally, our next show is "Our House" in October if anyone is interested!!! Just saying.
That's a great thing to use in this fight- how many local bars, cafes, restaurants and shops benefit from visitor trade? How many would shed staff if numbers fell?
[quote][p][bold]netty061[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Niki R[/bold] wrote: Why is nobody asking how many people visit the theatres from outside of Sutton?[/p][/quote]We know they do as many of our (Sutton Theatre Company) audience come from outside Sutton - we have a mailing list full of people outside the borough. Also, our own friends and family don't all live in the Sutton Borough. Incidentally, our next show is "Our House" in October if anyone is interested!!! Just saying.[/p][/quote]That's a great thing to use in this fight- how many local bars, cafes, restaurants and shops benefit from visitor trade? How many would shed staff if numbers fell? Niki R
  • Score: 4

2:01pm Fri 29 Aug 14

avantgarde says...

If the local council does shut the two theatre's plus Wallington hall the people of Sutton will have no places really to visit to see plays and other entertainment. I have been to Charles Cryer and Secombe theatre's in the past. I think that the arts is an important part of the community lets hope that this proposal does not take place of course the argument is that the council must save money in certain areas but to my mind profits seem to take preference over people yet again.
If the local council does shut the two theatre's plus Wallington hall the people of Sutton will have no places really to visit to see plays and other entertainment. I have been to Charles Cryer and Secombe theatre's in the past. I think that the arts is an important part of the community lets hope that this proposal does not take place of course the argument is that the council must save money in certain areas but to my mind profits seem to take preference over people yet again. avantgarde
  • Score: 2

5:11pm Fri 29 Aug 14

Emily_Brothers says...

I have set up a non-party political Facebook Group to help facilitate the exchange of views and encourage community support for the future of The Secombe Centre in light of the Council’s proposed closure. Whilst campaigning against cuts to local services and cultural facilities, I want to help find a long term viable solution for The Secombe Theatre. My aim is to bring people together to explore pragmatic ways of securing the future of The Secombe Theatre.

https://www.facebook
.com/savethesecombet
heatre?ref=ts&fref=t
s
I have set up a non-party political Facebook Group to help facilitate the exchange of views and encourage community support for the future of The Secombe Centre in light of the Council’s proposed closure. Whilst campaigning against cuts to local services and cultural facilities, I want to help find a long term viable solution for The Secombe Theatre. My aim is to bring people together to explore pragmatic ways of securing the future of The Secombe Theatre. https://www.facebook .com/savethesecombet heatre?ref=ts&fref=t s Emily_Brothers
  • Score: 4

5:24pm Fri 29 Aug 14

Emily_Brothers says...

https://www.facebook
.com/savethesecombet
heatre?fref=ts
https://www.facebook .com/savethesecombet heatre?fref=ts Emily_Brothers
  • Score: 2

5:53pm Fri 29 Aug 14

ResidentTony says...

Emily_Brothers wrote:
I have set up a non-party political Facebook Group to help facilitate the exchange of views and encourage community support for the future of The Secombe Centre in light of the Council’s proposed closure. Whilst campaigning against cuts to local services and cultural facilities, I want to help find a long term viable solution for The Secombe Theatre. My aim is to bring people together to explore pragmatic ways of securing the future of The Secombe Theatre.

https://www.facebook

.com/savethesecombet

heatre?ref=ts&fr
ef=t
s
Really excellent idea - well done for setting this up.
[quote][p][bold]Emily_Brothers[/bold] wrote: I have set up a non-party political Facebook Group to help facilitate the exchange of views and encourage community support for the future of The Secombe Centre in light of the Council’s proposed closure. Whilst campaigning against cuts to local services and cultural facilities, I want to help find a long term viable solution for The Secombe Theatre. My aim is to bring people together to explore pragmatic ways of securing the future of The Secombe Theatre. https://www.facebook .com/savethesecombet heatre?ref=ts&fr ef=t s[/p][/quote]Really excellent idea - well done for setting this up. ResidentTony
  • Score: 3

6:18pm Fri 29 Aug 14

netty061 says...

Emily_Brothers wrote:
I have set up a non-party political Facebook Group to help facilitate the exchange of views and encourage community support for the future of The Secombe Centre in light of the Council’s proposed closure. Whilst campaigning against cuts to local services and cultural facilities, I want to help find a long term viable solution for The Secombe Theatre. My aim is to bring people together to explore pragmatic ways of securing the future of The Secombe Theatre.

https://www.facebook

.com/savethesecombet

heatre?ref=ts&fr
ef=t
s
I've just invited a shed load of my facebook friends to 'like' the page - I hadn't even finished inviting when I got a reply!
[quote][p][bold]Emily_Brothers[/bold] wrote: I have set up a non-party political Facebook Group to help facilitate the exchange of views and encourage community support for the future of The Secombe Centre in light of the Council’s proposed closure. Whilst campaigning against cuts to local services and cultural facilities, I want to help find a long term viable solution for The Secombe Theatre. My aim is to bring people together to explore pragmatic ways of securing the future of The Secombe Theatre. https://www.facebook .com/savethesecombet heatre?ref=ts&fr ef=t s[/p][/quote]I've just invited a shed load of my facebook friends to 'like' the page - I hadn't even finished inviting when I got a reply! netty061
  • Score: 3

7:26am Sun 31 Aug 14

D Hoole says...

Here is a link to an e-petition started by a contributor to 'Streetlife' (a locality-based community forum). It will be forwarded to Sutton council in due course.
http://www.change.or
g/p/sutton-council-r
econsider-the-future
-of-sutton-s-theatre
s
Here is a link to an e-petition started by a contributor to 'Streetlife' (a locality-based community forum). It will be forwarded to Sutton council in due course. http://www.change.or g/p/sutton-council-r econsider-the-future -of-sutton-s-theatre s D Hoole
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree