Wednesday, 17 February 2010


HYDE STUDLEY ESTATE "TREE'S FOR SHITTIES" - where "caught short" folk stop off to relieve themselves at the WAR MEMORIAL GARDENS - users according to HYDE on 2/11 would never use a COMMUNITY TOILET SCHEME facility - so chalk up another HYDE "CTS non-participation" bonus point there then. In fact all anti social "caught shortists" who use a public place were deemed by HYDE to be uncaring permanent abusers - CTS availability not withstanding. This from HYDE's lead officer on anti social behaviour - as someone who has had occasion to urinate in public this HYDE-speak is codswallop.
MacDONALD's??? Yes they got a mention on 2/11 - HYDE's official stated that when he's "caught short" he heads for MacDONALD's. So they crept in on the act.
CLICK in image to ENLARGE text - and see discussion paragraphs below.

CLICK on the above images to ENLARGE and read their CONTENT.
Immediately above are two items of recent correspondence from this blogger to HYDE which eventually led to the 11th February meeting. Staff employed by the Hyde "YOU talk WE listen" hype-machine are expressly forbidden to open any info which requires them to open "web" links - so if it's blogged information it can ONLY be communicated if already copied and pasted to them by hard mail or by email already fully formatted - thus it was that enclosed with the 2nd of the above two communications sections of the recent TOILET WATCH blogspot texts - HERE - were also enclosed to draw them to Hyde's attention for consideration and hopefully further clarification.
These enclosures had included details of the activities of Alex Bigham, the STOCKWELL LABOUR PARTY Secretary (and also a local LABOUR PARTY BLOGGER) who in early 2009 had unsuccessfully tried to enrol local Central Stockwell outlets into the COMMUNITY TOILET SCHEME. Bigham is now a HYDE BOARD member and a curious feature of the Bigham 2009 initiative had been that HYDE was a glaring omission from the local outlets that he'd approached. He had been sent subsequent reminders about approaching Hyde - so too had other local LABOUR PARTY worthies (including another Hyde Board member Councillor BOWYER) but a total non-responsive silence had continued to reign - so one hope was that the above correspondence with HYDE would produce enlightenment.

So why wasn't HYDE being approached re CTS participation? The above reproduced correspondence was acknowledged with an email (27 January) indicating that a "FULL REPORT" would be made in 10 days. The "FULL REPORT" report (contained in an email dated 3rd Feb) - as also reproduced above - was hardly FULL and it introduced even more intrigue. Not least because it contained a totally puzzling and incorrect statement that this blogger had previously given HYDE to understand that misuse of the Studley Estate Memorial Garden area (top foto above) anti socially as a public toilet was a predominantly "NIGHT TIME ECONOMY" phenomina. This was absolutely incorrect - because prior to the 2/11 meeting there had never been a single face to face conversation about lack of local public toilets in any context with the said official. Indeed this claim in the FULL REPORT (so-called) was so erroneous that it was suspected that HYDE had a further unstated dovetail motive for the suggestion - which it does seem to have had because HYDE was to repeat the claim that its opening hours made Hyde unfit to enrol as a COMMUNITY TOILET SCHEME participant (see below). In fact during the 2/11 meeting totally out of the blue HYDE's official suddenly observed that electronic pop up urinals were a good development. It was acknowledged in reply that they were okay but had short comings - (1) they only popped up for about a few hours late at night, (2) only at weekends and (3) were a zero option for women. Again Hyde steering the agenda to the night time economy into a time zone when its office was closed.
An objection raised by HYDE on 2/11 to its CTS participation concerned HYDE's opening hours - its official simply stated that they were too brief to make particiption worthwhile - presumably that is if they were sympathetic to participation which of course they were not. Mind you throughout the meeting from time to time HYDE stated that it had not reached any decison on participation!!! This rather seemed like operation double bluff - the so-called FULL REPORT official had to be pressed to explain what efforts he had actually made to enquire into HYDE's disposition re participation. He then duly felt pressured enough to concede okay he had had discussions with HYDE's Managing Director. And HYDE BOARD members had they been contacted consulted or had any imput? "This is not a matter for consideration at BOARD level".
It remains curious that 2 years after the COMMUNITY TOILET SCHEME was initiated and despite one STOCKWELL WARD COUNCILLOR being a HYDE BOARD MEMBER throughout - and all the many communications and missives sent via this blogger in their directions HYDE SOUTHBANK HOMES had allegedly given no consideration to the problems arising from lack of local public toilet provision. It is hardly believeable though it is possible that in reality HYDE was so anti participation that it wanted to keep its head well down.
HYDE's spokesperson at 2/11 meeting has primary HYDE responsibility for anti social behaviour and lack of public toilet provision is clearly a seriously exacerbating local factor and HYDE ought to have been - and ought now to be - in the running publicly so that improvments are made. So far as is known HYDE has been totally rigor mortis in these regards. And so far as the misuse of the Studley Estate Trees for Shities area (top foto above) is concerned Hyde maintained that CTS non participation wasn't relevant because those who publicly relieve themselves would simply never use CTS facilities even if they existed - period. No wonder HYDE is so inclined to do zero about non provision. Mind you it could additionally be that they don't want to publicly put pressure on a Borough Council that doesn't want to make provision. HYDE did state under pressure on 2/11 that public toilet provision was a Local Authority responsibility as distinct from theirs - that was being said somewhat cowardly in just a small room with only two persons present - its never been and is not being addressed by them more publicly. You notice that in the "FULL REPORT" HYDE emailed text above that it does not include the observation that Public Toilet provision is a Local Authority not a HYDE responsibility.
HYDE maintains that it would not particpate in the CTS scheme because its opening hours (detailed in its 3rd Feb FULL REPORT email - as above) are too short. Its official clearly expressed bemusement at the prospect of participation because he simply could not imagine who would want to use HYDE's toilet facility even if participation were agreed - he simply could not forsee that anyone would use it. He stated with studied careful pronounciation that HYDE "res-id-ents" could use their foyer area facility but he was immediately absolutely dead set against HYDE publicising that availability when it was suggested that that would inform those HYDE "residents" who might find the information helpful.
The further intriguing and clearly contrasting feature related to the early 2009 CTS invites sent around Central Stockwell by ALEX BIGHAM - who is now a HYDE BOARD member - is that among those he then invited without success were the local POST OFFICE, the very small chemist actually inside Stockwell Underground Station, the NAT WEST BANK just across the road and the vetinary practice opposite the Clock Tower - some interesting "opening hours" opportunities were implicit with these invites - never mind more honest and not just make believe convenient negative factors - the full BIGHAM invite list is HERE.
Perhaps HYDE and BOARD member BIGHAM should confer although perhaps that is expecting too much.


At 4 March 2010 at 09:32 , Anonymous Anonymous said...



Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home