what do you expect for free?

ninky_2

i'm interested in why people almost universally think it is good / necessary for green spaces to be owned by the public and free at the point of use.

pretty socialist thinking round these parts - no?

B_Blank

ninky wrote: »

i'm interested in why people almost universally think it is good / necessary for green spaces to be owned by the public and free at the point of use.

pretty socialist thinking round these parts - no?

If you didnt then no business man would make money out of a park so you basically have to run it from government.

So you think saying some things being run from government is socialist? We would all put less in the hands of government so its hardly the case.

This is just a sad wind up attempt thread to be honest.

You have chosen the following steps:

1, Post an leading question.
2, Let people come in and post their views (like you know they will)
3, Attack people for their views and attempt to prove your intelligence.

I see right through your plan! Not very smart sorry.:T

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

i'm interested in why people almost universally think it is good / necessary for green spaces to be owned by the public and free at the point of use.

pretty socialist thinking round these parts - no?

lol, maybe for me. I think its important children have places to run/scream/let off steam and adults have places to be ''alone'' and exercise and let of steam. A bunch of frustrated people with too much energy is no good for anyone. If I thought it could be possible and cost effective I would ban people found fouling/defacing such areas though. But it wouldn't be.

I don't think they have to be publically owned though....eg. richmond park/hyde park/green park. They aren't are they? But still provide a public resource. I can live with that.

I also think free at point of use is a v. different thing to free. And a lot of the things other people think should be free/free at point of use I don't necessarily think should be free to all....I'm sure thay more than outweigh the balance

blueboy43

ninky wrote: »

i'm interested in why people almost universally think it is good / necessary for green spaces to be owned by the public and free at the point of use.

pretty socialist thinking round these parts - no?

The UK public parks (in cities) came out for various reasons some (Peel Park Salford) were created by public subscription.

Some were ex Royal Parks (Hyde & St james in London).

Some were created by municipal councils (Birkenhead Park - on which New Yorks Central Park is based).

I'm not sure if socialism comes it to it as much as paternalism.

lostinrates

blueboy43 wrote: »

Some were ex Royal Parks (Hyde & St james in London).

That's interesting, I thought they still were Royal Parks.

StevieJ

lostinrates wrote: »

That's interesting, I thought they still were Royal Parks.

A bit of a Google.

The Royal Parks are owned by the Sovereign in right of the Crown, but were passed to the
Government under the Crown Lands Act 1851 to be managed as public open space. They are now
the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who delegates their day to
day operational management to The Royal Parks (TRP).

Sapphire

The things that affect the wide majority of people, and not just sections of the population, so things like healthcare, green spaces, policing, fire service and road maintenance. Also state pensions for those who have paid tax and national insurance for decades (thereby funding things like other people's childcare, though they may have no children themselves, housing benefits and so on, throughout their working lives). I don't object to paying for these things with my (i.e. taxpayers') money.

lostinrates

StevieJ wrote: »

A bit of a Google.

I knew about The Royal Parks management thingy, because I know someone who worked for them, and used to be some interaction with the Royal PArks and a Residents association I was resident in. but that's all really interesting. Thank you Stevie, blueboy and google.

ninky_2

blueboy43 wrote: »

The UK public parks (in cities) came out for various reasons some (Peel Park Salford) were created by public subscription.

Some were ex Royal Parks (Hyde & St james in London).

Some were created by municipal councils (Birkenhead Park - on which New Yorks Central Park is based).

I'm not sure if socialism comes it to it as much as paternalism.

what is the difference?

something that is owned and maintained by the public for the public good and free at the point of use is a highly socialist concept.

you just don't want to admit it because you like the idea of free public green spaces but don't like the idea of anything that smacks of socialism.

DaddyBear

When you're in the 40% tax band nothing is free.