The print version of the Central Somerset Gazette ran this as the only front page story.
Protesters take over Morlands (click for full story)
Large parts of pages 4 and 5 also carried stories about the occupation:
Councillors back squatters (click for full story)
It's a good headline but Harvey Siggs doesn't seem to say anything in support in the article.
As far as I know, the other two are Conservatives...and they're backing squatters?!? Watch your head, you might get hit by a flying pig...
Some more history:
Business once boomed at site
The last line reads: "Priority Sites had announced its intention to start work on the site last summer, but the economic climate has forced it to hold fire on the development."
Hmmm...do they see it as a Lower Priority Site?
from the above;
ReplyDeleteCarl Budden, head of regeneration at the SWRDA, said: "On Tuesday we were on site and offered to arrange a meeting with representatives of the group to explain why we believe that demolition is the only reasonable course of action.
"This building is in a dangerous state of repair and, as it is very difficult to keep such an open site totally secure, it therefore poses a serious risk to members of the public.
.... We believe that further consultation now would only serve to prolong this serious risk to the public.
"We want this to be resolved amicably and hope that the protesters will leave the site once they fully understand the danger in the building and that demolition is our only realistic option. We have explored every other possibility and have to conclude that none is financially or practically viable."
The logical way to 'explain why we believe that demolition is the only reasonable course of action' and make people 'fully understand the danger in the building and that demolition is our only realistic option' is to share the 'every other possibility'(!) documents and information about the parlous state of the building (a structural survey?) so that those interested in saving it can see the facts. ....words are not enough.