Vandals attack fences in sheep graze protest

Graffiti daubed on a gate at Ladies Mile

Graffiti daubed on a gate at Ladies Mile

First published in News by , Reporter

Vandals have covered fence posts with graffiti and cut down fencing because sheep could be put to graze on a popular dog-walking spot.

Wire fences put up at Ladies Mile, a designated nature reserve, have been cut in more than 30 places after Brighton and Hove City Council decided to graze sheep on the land. New gates have been daubed with the slogan ‘no sheep here’.

Resident John Cook, who walks his dogs on Ladies Mile, said: “It is ridiculous. We don’t want the sheep here and we have been bulldozed. They say the sheep will save money but they are only going to be on for two months of the year and they have to spend money putting up all these fences and cause all this upset.”

Sheep will be introduced on to the land in September for two months.

Sam Dunk, 25, who used to live in Patcham, said it would be a shame for runners, while the loss of land was “gutting”.

Coun Geoffrey Theobald said: “There is two sides to this – the council did a very big consultation quite some time ago and their consultation came back with overwhelming support for putting sheep up there.

“Some dogwalkers are against it but the vast majority of people are very much in favour of it. The sheep only stay up there for relatively short periods of time but, of course, you have a difference of opinion. I presented their petitions to the relevant council committees but the consultation was in favour.”

Other dog walkers support the plans. One, who wanted to remain anonymous, said: “If it is good for the environment let them do it – they are just sheep.”

A Brighton and Hove City Council spokesman said: “Extensive information on this on our website says we’ll rotate the areas used for sheep grazing to make sure there’s always plenty of room for dog walkers. Fencing and the presence of ‘lookerers’ regularly tending sheep should make the area more secure from vehicles and antisocial behaviour. In surveying, we’ve had very heavy support for our proposals to improve the location.”

Comments (27)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:14am Tue 19 Aug 14

Tr1stan says...

Bet those who may not have voiced their opinion/vote are feeling sheepish..?
Bet those who may not have voiced their opinion/vote are feeling sheepish..? Tr1stan
  • Score: -2

6:27am Tue 19 Aug 14

Wide Bertha says...

Coun Theobald neds to brush up on his grammar, or does he ?
Coun Theobald neds to brush up on his grammar, or does he ? Wide Bertha
  • Score: 5

6:27am Tue 19 Aug 14

Wide Bertha says...

*needs
*needs Wide Bertha
  • Score: 0

7:09am Tue 19 Aug 14

Plantpot says...

Wide Bertha wrote:
Coun Theobald neds to brush up on his grammar, or does he ?
Oh, the irony
[quote][p][bold]Wide Bertha[/bold] wrote: Coun Theobald neds to brush up on his grammar, or does he ?[/p][/quote]Oh, the irony Plantpot
  • Score: 15

7:15am Tue 19 Aug 14

Old Ale Man says...

Greens are baaaarmy anyway, they'll tell you that sheep have been grazing there for 1000s of years before dog walkers allowed their dogs to Tom-Tit on the fields, anyway now sheep will be grazing where dogs have been doing there business I shall not be eating any more lamb.
Greens are baaaarmy anyway, they'll tell you that sheep have been grazing there for 1000s of years before dog walkers allowed their dogs to Tom-Tit on the fields, anyway now sheep will be grazing where dogs have been doing there business I shall not be eating any more lamb. Old Ale Man
  • Score: -5

8:56am Tue 19 Aug 14

BlackRocker says...

"the presence of ‘lookerers’ regularly tending sheep should make the area more secure from vehicles and antisocial behaviour."

I wonder who he could be thinking of . . .
"the presence of ‘lookerers’ regularly tending sheep should make the area more secure from vehicles and antisocial behaviour." I wonder who he could be thinking of . . . BlackRocker
  • Score: 6

9:26am Tue 19 Aug 14

fredflintstone1 says...

The cost of sheep is not a saving over mowing. As the Argus revealed through an FoI request last year, grazing cost over £140,000 for the previous two years, whereas mowing was £30,000 a year.

The main beneficiary of this scheme is the son of the Grazing Officer of the Sussex Wildlife Trust - who is paid £2 per sheep per week, and other costs too.

The council take no notice of whether people want sheep or not. Nearly 1800 signed a petition opposing sheep in Wild Park, and they still ended up there, with over 300 oaks, elms and other trees being felled illegally by the Council to accommodate them.

There is not a single shred of published evidence to show that sheep have brought any conservation benefits to our public parks here in Brighton and Hove. All they've done is to discourage people such as joggers, cyclists or dog-walkers from using these (former) open public spaces.

The amount of waste that sheep produce is huge - according to DEFRA, a flock of 40 will produce over 110,000 tablespoons of droppings over the area where they are grazing in a month. Try clearing that lot up!

The council do nothing to alert people to the associated health risks which linger long after the droppings have been broken down on the soil surface. The fact that you can't see it makes it even more dangerous especially if you have children. Sheep can pass E.coli, Salmonella and many more potential illnesses in their droppings, that can infect us.

This is totally unacceptable on public health grounds. You go to a farm park, and there are handwashes - no such provision is made by the council at its sheep grazing sites on public lands.

Parks should be for people, not for sheep. Funny how it's bodies like the Sussex Wildlife Trust who are so keen to advocate schemes of this type that ultimately make even more money by selling meat.

It's a wonderful wheeze - get your sheep looked after for free, have all your costs paid for out of the public funds, and then bank all the profit when the sheep are ready to go market. Surely this represents the ultimate gravy trail?!

It's time this nepotistic cycle was stopped - the £110,000 would be better spent on helping vulnerable people in this city.
The cost of sheep is not a saving over mowing. As the Argus revealed through an FoI request last year, grazing cost over £140,000 for the previous two years, whereas mowing was £30,000 a year. The main beneficiary of this scheme is the son of the Grazing Officer of the Sussex Wildlife Trust - who is paid £2 per sheep per week, and other costs too. The council take no notice of whether people want sheep or not. Nearly 1800 signed a petition opposing sheep in Wild Park, and they still ended up there, with over 300 oaks, elms and other trees being felled illegally by the Council to accommodate them. There is not a single shred of published evidence to show that sheep have brought any conservation benefits to our public parks here in Brighton and Hove. All they've done is to discourage people such as joggers, cyclists or dog-walkers from using these (former) open public spaces. The amount of waste that sheep produce is huge - according to DEFRA, a flock of 40 will produce over 110,000 tablespoons of droppings over the area where they are grazing in a month. Try clearing that lot up! The council do nothing to alert people to the associated health risks which linger long after the droppings have been broken down on the soil surface. The fact that you can't see it makes it even more dangerous especially if you have children. Sheep can pass E.coli, Salmonella and many more potential illnesses in their droppings, that can infect us. This is totally unacceptable on public health grounds. You go to a farm park, and there are handwashes - no such provision is made by the council at its sheep grazing sites on public lands. Parks should be for people, not for sheep. Funny how it's bodies like the Sussex Wildlife Trust who are so keen to advocate schemes of this type that ultimately make even more money by selling meat. It's a wonderful wheeze - get your sheep looked after for free, have all your costs paid for out of the public funds, and then bank all the profit when the sheep are ready to go market. Surely this represents the ultimate gravy trail?! It's time this nepotistic cycle was stopped - the £110,000 would be better spent on helping vulnerable people in this city. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 23

9:39am Tue 19 Aug 14

Max Ripple says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
The cost of sheep is not a saving over mowing. As the Argus revealed through an FoI request last year, grazing cost over £140,000 for the previous two years, whereas mowing was £30,000 a year.

The main beneficiary of this scheme is the son of the Grazing Officer of the Sussex Wildlife Trust - who is paid £2 per sheep per week, and other costs too.

The council take no notice of whether people want sheep or not. Nearly 1800 signed a petition opposing sheep in Wild Park, and they still ended up there, with over 300 oaks, elms and other trees being felled illegally by the Council to accommodate them.

There is not a single shred of published evidence to show that sheep have brought any conservation benefits to our public parks here in Brighton and Hove. All they've done is to discourage people such as joggers, cyclists or dog-walkers from using these (former) open public spaces.

The amount of waste that sheep produce is huge - according to DEFRA, a flock of 40 will produce over 110,000 tablespoons of droppings over the area where they are grazing in a month. Try clearing that lot up!

The council do nothing to alert people to the associated health risks which linger long after the droppings have been broken down on the soil surface. The fact that you can't see it makes it even more dangerous especially if you have children. Sheep can pass E.coli, Salmonella and many more potential illnesses in their droppings, that can infect us.

This is totally unacceptable on public health grounds. You go to a farm park, and there are handwashes - no such provision is made by the council at its sheep grazing sites on public lands.

Parks should be for people, not for sheep. Funny how it's bodies like the Sussex Wildlife Trust who are so keen to advocate schemes of this type that ultimately make even more money by selling meat.

It's a wonderful wheeze - get your sheep looked after for free, have all your costs paid for out of the public funds, and then bank all the profit when the sheep are ready to go market. Surely this represents the ultimate gravy trail?!

It's time this nepotistic cycle was stopped - the £110,000 would be better spent on helping vulnerable people in this city.
Excellent post. Well researched and put together. Take note B and H council. Something which costs £110k over the cost of mowing cannot be good value but then again, this is another example of right on Green trendy madness. All the health risks are another issue. "Save Lives by Driving at 20mph but Kill People Off by Poisoning Them With Sheep Sh*t".
Keep it up Greens - you'll be out next May.
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: The cost of sheep is not a saving over mowing. As the Argus revealed through an FoI request last year, grazing cost over £140,000 for the previous two years, whereas mowing was £30,000 a year. The main beneficiary of this scheme is the son of the Grazing Officer of the Sussex Wildlife Trust - who is paid £2 per sheep per week, and other costs too. The council take no notice of whether people want sheep or not. Nearly 1800 signed a petition opposing sheep in Wild Park, and they still ended up there, with over 300 oaks, elms and other trees being felled illegally by the Council to accommodate them. There is not a single shred of published evidence to show that sheep have brought any conservation benefits to our public parks here in Brighton and Hove. All they've done is to discourage people such as joggers, cyclists or dog-walkers from using these (former) open public spaces. The amount of waste that sheep produce is huge - according to DEFRA, a flock of 40 will produce over 110,000 tablespoons of droppings over the area where they are grazing in a month. Try clearing that lot up! The council do nothing to alert people to the associated health risks which linger long after the droppings have been broken down on the soil surface. The fact that you can't see it makes it even more dangerous especially if you have children. Sheep can pass E.coli, Salmonella and many more potential illnesses in their droppings, that can infect us. This is totally unacceptable on public health grounds. You go to a farm park, and there are handwashes - no such provision is made by the council at its sheep grazing sites on public lands. Parks should be for people, not for sheep. Funny how it's bodies like the Sussex Wildlife Trust who are so keen to advocate schemes of this type that ultimately make even more money by selling meat. It's a wonderful wheeze - get your sheep looked after for free, have all your costs paid for out of the public funds, and then bank all the profit when the sheep are ready to go market. Surely this represents the ultimate gravy trail?! It's time this nepotistic cycle was stopped - the £110,000 would be better spent on helping vulnerable people in this city.[/p][/quote]Excellent post. Well researched and put together. Take note B and H council. Something which costs £110k over the cost of mowing cannot be good value but then again, this is another example of right on Green trendy madness. All the health risks are another issue. "Save Lives by Driving at 20mph but Kill People Off by Poisoning Them With Sheep Sh*t". Keep it up Greens - you'll be out next May. Max Ripple
  • Score: 20

10:24am Tue 19 Aug 14

Mel Shock says...

looks like the fixed the address now Paul :-)

You kept newspaper fame quiet ha ha !!
looks like the fixed the address now Paul :-) You kept newspaper fame quiet ha ha !! Mel Shock
  • Score: -2

10:25am Tue 19 Aug 14

Mel Shock says...

Ignore above it posted on a completely differnt article !!!!
Ignore above it posted on a completely differnt article !!!! Mel Shock
  • Score: -2

10:31am Tue 19 Aug 14

wippasnapper says...

“Their consultation came back with overwhelming support” haven’t everyone noticed yet every time this green council put out a consultation it all ways comes back with overwhelming support, basically regardless of any objections to any number of there proposals/ consultation they will always say we have had overwhelming support and go ahead with it because that’s what they want simple as that and before long they will be fencing off the grass verges to graze sheep upon them “sounds ridiculous” but under this green admonitions nothing should surprise use.
“Their consultation came back with overwhelming support” haven’t everyone noticed yet every time this green council put out a consultation it all ways comes back with overwhelming support, basically regardless of any objections to any number of there proposals/ consultation they will always say we have had overwhelming support and go ahead with it because that’s what they want simple as that and before long they will be fencing off the grass verges to graze sheep upon them “sounds ridiculous” but under this green admonitions nothing should surprise use. wippasnapper
  • Score: 11

11:05am Tue 19 Aug 14

notslimjim says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
The cost of sheep is not a saving over mowing. As the Argus revealed through an FoI request last year, grazing cost over £140,000 for the previous two years, whereas mowing was £30,000 a year.

The main beneficiary of this scheme is the son of the Grazing Officer of the Sussex Wildlife Trust - who is paid £2 per sheep per week, and other costs too.

The council take no notice of whether people want sheep or not. Nearly 1800 signed a petition opposing sheep in Wild Park, and they still ended up there, with over 300 oaks, elms and other trees being felled illegally by the Council to accommodate them.

There is not a single shred of published evidence to show that sheep have brought any conservation benefits to our public parks here in Brighton and Hove. All they've done is to discourage people such as joggers, cyclists or dog-walkers from using these (former) open public spaces.

The amount of waste that sheep produce is huge - according to DEFRA, a flock of 40 will produce over 110,000 tablespoons of droppings over the area where they are grazing in a month. Try clearing that lot up!

The council do nothing to alert people to the associated health risks which linger long after the droppings have been broken down on the soil surface. The fact that you can't see it makes it even more dangerous especially if you have children. Sheep can pass E.coli, Salmonella and many more potential illnesses in their droppings, that can infect us.

This is totally unacceptable on public health grounds. You go to a farm park, and there are handwashes - no such provision is made by the council at its sheep grazing sites on public lands.

Parks should be for people, not for sheep. Funny how it's bodies like the Sussex Wildlife Trust who are so keen to advocate schemes of this type that ultimately make even more money by selling meat.

It's a wonderful wheeze - get your sheep looked after for free, have all your costs paid for out of the public funds, and then bank all the profit when the sheep are ready to go market. Surely this represents the ultimate gravy trail?!

It's time this nepotistic cycle was stopped - the £110,000 would be better spent on helping vulnerable people in this city.
Whereas dog-muck is a perfectly healthy substance.......oh, wait......
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: The cost of sheep is not a saving over mowing. As the Argus revealed through an FoI request last year, grazing cost over £140,000 for the previous two years, whereas mowing was £30,000 a year. The main beneficiary of this scheme is the son of the Grazing Officer of the Sussex Wildlife Trust - who is paid £2 per sheep per week, and other costs too. The council take no notice of whether people want sheep or not. Nearly 1800 signed a petition opposing sheep in Wild Park, and they still ended up there, with over 300 oaks, elms and other trees being felled illegally by the Council to accommodate them. There is not a single shred of published evidence to show that sheep have brought any conservation benefits to our public parks here in Brighton and Hove. All they've done is to discourage people such as joggers, cyclists or dog-walkers from using these (former) open public spaces. The amount of waste that sheep produce is huge - according to DEFRA, a flock of 40 will produce over 110,000 tablespoons of droppings over the area where they are grazing in a month. Try clearing that lot up! The council do nothing to alert people to the associated health risks which linger long after the droppings have been broken down on the soil surface. The fact that you can't see it makes it even more dangerous especially if you have children. Sheep can pass E.coli, Salmonella and many more potential illnesses in their droppings, that can infect us. This is totally unacceptable on public health grounds. You go to a farm park, and there are handwashes - no such provision is made by the council at its sheep grazing sites on public lands. Parks should be for people, not for sheep. Funny how it's bodies like the Sussex Wildlife Trust who are so keen to advocate schemes of this type that ultimately make even more money by selling meat. It's a wonderful wheeze - get your sheep looked after for free, have all your costs paid for out of the public funds, and then bank all the profit when the sheep are ready to go market. Surely this represents the ultimate gravy trail?! It's time this nepotistic cycle was stopped - the £110,000 would be better spent on helping vulnerable people in this city.[/p][/quote]Whereas dog-muck is a perfectly healthy substance.......oh, wait...... notslimjim
  • Score: 1

11:43am Tue 19 Aug 14

charlie smirke says...

wippasnapper wrote:
“Their consultation came back with overwhelming support” haven’t everyone noticed yet every time this green council put out a consultation it all ways comes back with overwhelming support, basically regardless of any objections to any number of there proposals/ consultation they will always say we have had overwhelming support and go ahead with it because that’s what they want simple as that and before long they will be fencing off the grass verges to graze sheep upon them “sounds ridiculous” but under this green admonitions nothing should surprise use.
Completely agree with you! I know all politicians are inherent liars but the greenery have to take the award for blatant lies. They have to be the most unscrupulous and manipulative people that have ever been inflicted on Brighton.
[quote][p][bold]wippasnapper[/bold] wrote: “Their consultation came back with overwhelming support” haven’t everyone noticed yet every time this green council put out a consultation it all ways comes back with overwhelming support, basically regardless of any objections to any number of there proposals/ consultation they will always say we have had overwhelming support and go ahead with it because that’s what they want simple as that and before long they will be fencing off the grass verges to graze sheep upon them “sounds ridiculous” but under this green admonitions nothing should surprise use.[/p][/quote]Completely agree with you! I know all politicians are inherent liars but the greenery have to take the award for blatant lies. They have to be the most unscrupulous and manipulative people that have ever been inflicted on Brighton. charlie smirke
  • Score: 10

12:21pm Tue 19 Aug 14

fredflintstone1 says...

wippasnapper wrote:
“Their consultation came back with overwhelming support” haven’t everyone noticed yet every time this green council put out a consultation it all ways comes back with overwhelming support, basically regardless of any objections to any number of there proposals/ consultation they will always say we have had overwhelming support and go ahead with it because that’s what they want simple as that and before long they will be fencing off the grass verges to graze sheep upon them “sounds ridiculous” but under this green admonitions nothing should surprise use.
Closer to the truth than you suspect! The Greens aren't even going to bother fencing off the verges though.

Their next plan is to let sheep wander freely back and forth across the busy Ditchling Road, in the area from Woodbourne Garage up to Old Boat Corner. This, of course, is the last major route into Brighton that they haven't been able to meddle with to date.

Responsible administrations have previously worked to minimise fatalities on this section of road, which is unlit and subject to poor visibility. Now though, the current Green obsession with sheep has reached the point of endangering people's lives.
[quote][p][bold]wippasnapper[/bold] wrote: “Their consultation came back with overwhelming support” haven’t everyone noticed yet every time this green council put out a consultation it all ways comes back with overwhelming support, basically regardless of any objections to any number of there proposals/ consultation they will always say we have had overwhelming support and go ahead with it because that’s what they want simple as that and before long they will be fencing off the grass verges to graze sheep upon them “sounds ridiculous” but under this green admonitions nothing should surprise use.[/p][/quote]Closer to the truth than you suspect! The Greens aren't even going to bother fencing off the verges though. Their next plan is to let sheep wander freely back and forth across the busy Ditchling Road, in the area from Woodbourne Garage up to Old Boat Corner. This, of course, is the last major route into Brighton that they haven't been able to meddle with to date. Responsible administrations have previously worked to minimise fatalities on this section of road, which is unlit and subject to poor visibility. Now though, the current Green obsession with sheep has reached the point of endangering people's lives. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 10

2:12pm Tue 19 Aug 14

NickBrt says...

Give me sheep over travellers anyday.
Give me sheep over travellers anyday. NickBrt
  • Score: 11

5:39pm Tue 19 Aug 14

nuff said says...

I'd rather have sheep (and their droppings) than the dog sh*t from John Cook "walking" his dogs.
I'd rather have sheep (and their droppings) than the dog sh*t from John Cook "walking" his dogs. nuff said
  • Score: 2

7:37pm Tue 19 Aug 14

melee says...

I don't understand how sheep can be bad news for runners and cyclists, when I take my bike on to the Downs I spend all my time avoiding the disgusting dogs' mess but I can't say sheep droppings bother me much.
I don't understand how sheep can be bad news for runners and cyclists, when I take my bike on to the Downs I spend all my time avoiding the disgusting dogs' mess but I can't say sheep droppings bother me much. melee
  • Score: -2

8:40pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Bill in Hanover says...

wippasnapper wrote:
“Their consultation came back with overwhelming support” haven’t everyone noticed yet every time this green council put out a consultation it all ways comes back with overwhelming support, basically regardless of any objections to any number of there proposals/ consultation they will always say we have had overwhelming support and go ahead with it because that’s what they want simple as that and before long they will be fencing off the grass verges to graze sheep upon them “sounds ridiculous” but under this green admonitions nothing should surprise use.
The Greens are keen to show that they 'consult' with the people but most of their consultations are targeted at people who will support the Green agenda, when the Green MP wanted to introduce 'shooting galleries' which would allow druggies to take their fix without interference from the police the Green Council held a consultation opposite Sussex University, knowing that students are notoriously soft on anything to do with drugs and very few of them are residents so would not see the long term effects of opening up what would basically be open markets for drug dealers.
[quote][p][bold]wippasnapper[/bold] wrote: “Their consultation came back with overwhelming support” haven’t everyone noticed yet every time this green council put out a consultation it all ways comes back with overwhelming support, basically regardless of any objections to any number of there proposals/ consultation they will always say we have had overwhelming support and go ahead with it because that’s what they want simple as that and before long they will be fencing off the grass verges to graze sheep upon them “sounds ridiculous” but under this green admonitions nothing should surprise use.[/p][/quote]The Greens are keen to show that they 'consult' with the people but most of their consultations are targeted at people who will support the Green agenda, when the Green MP wanted to introduce 'shooting galleries' which would allow druggies to take their fix without interference from the police the Green Council held a consultation opposite Sussex University, knowing that students are notoriously soft on anything to do with drugs and very few of them are residents so would not see the long term effects of opening up what would basically be open markets for drug dealers. Bill in Hanover
  • Score: 6

9:54pm Tue 19 Aug 14

getThisCoalitionOut says...

So why is the council paying for all the fencing and gates needed? Surely that should be paid by the owner of the sheep who is benefitting from all of this by his sheep getting fed?

This seems corrupt beyond belief. Someone is being PAID to have their sheep on this PUBLIC LAND - and all the fencing needed is also being paid for.

Someone has said this is costing £110K whereas the mowing of grass cost £30K - so this is costing far more and someone is financially benefitting from all of this - that is a rip off to council tax payers and someone should be arrested for this.

I won't expect it to happen though as we know B&H police are as corrupt as the councillors.
So why is the council paying for all the fencing and gates needed? Surely that should be paid by the owner of the sheep who is benefitting from all of this by his sheep getting fed? This seems corrupt beyond belief. Someone is being PAID to have their sheep on this PUBLIC LAND - and all the fencing needed is also being paid for. Someone has said this is costing £110K whereas the mowing of grass cost £30K - so this is costing far more and someone is financially benefitting from all of this - that is a rip off to council tax payers and someone should be arrested for this. I won't expect it to happen though as we know B&H police are as corrupt as the councillors. getThisCoalitionOut
  • Score: 5

10:52pm Tue 19 Aug 14

fredflintstone1 says...

getThisCoalitionOut wrote:
So why is the council paying for all the fencing and gates needed? Surely that should be paid by the owner of the sheep who is benefitting from all of this by his sheep getting fed?

This seems corrupt beyond belief. Someone is being PAID to have their sheep on this PUBLIC LAND - and all the fencing needed is also being paid for.

Someone has said this is costing £110K whereas the mowing of grass cost £30K - so this is costing far more and someone is financially benefitting from all of this - that is a rip off to council tax payers and someone should be arrested for this.

I won't expect it to happen though as we know B&H police are as corrupt as the councillors.
The awarding of the grazing contract was not the result of competitive tendering either, according to what well-placed Council sources have told me. In addition, the true grazing costs are actually higher, because they do not include council staff driving around from site to site, dealing with their Twitter feed etc. etc..

Nor does this figure include the cost of the compensatory tree planting that the Council persuaded the Forestry Commission to allow them to undertake at Stanmer Park, in order to avoid prosecution for cutting down trees without a felling licence at Wild Park. It also doesn't cover the increased salary of the person directly responsible for this fiasco who has subsequently been promoted, rather than sacked.

However, the most worrying thing is that this type of situation is seemingly far from unique. Look around at what is happening elsewhere in the city. Why, for example, is there a private, fee-paying language school operating within Dorothy Stringer during school hours, using facilities intended for local pupils? Who is making money from this scheme?

The school is oversubscribed, and yet there is no problem ensuring these foreign students attend classes alongside pupils at the school and benefit from the teaching and facilities. This was all carefully hushed up during Stringer's recent planning application. You won't find any details of the language school on the list of consultees, or any response from those running it, although this language school is clearly a major stakeholder, using the grounds there as well as the classrooms. In fact, it must be pretty unique, being a school without any buildings or land of its own!!

Just why should a private educational business be able to gain direct access for their students to publicly-funded facilities that are being denied to ordinary families living in the city? It's a scandal - and there's plenty more in similar vein.....
[quote][p][bold]getThisCoalitionOut[/bold] wrote: So why is the council paying for all the fencing and gates needed? Surely that should be paid by the owner of the sheep who is benefitting from all of this by his sheep getting fed? This seems corrupt beyond belief. Someone is being PAID to have their sheep on this PUBLIC LAND - and all the fencing needed is also being paid for. Someone has said this is costing £110K whereas the mowing of grass cost £30K - so this is costing far more and someone is financially benefitting from all of this - that is a rip off to council tax payers and someone should be arrested for this. I won't expect it to happen though as we know B&H police are as corrupt as the councillors.[/p][/quote]The awarding of the grazing contract was not the result of competitive tendering either, according to what well-placed Council sources have told me. In addition, the true grazing costs are actually higher, because they do not include council staff driving around from site to site, dealing with their Twitter feed etc. etc.. Nor does this figure include the cost of the compensatory tree planting that the Council persuaded the Forestry Commission to allow them to undertake at Stanmer Park, in order to avoid prosecution for cutting down trees without a felling licence at Wild Park. It also doesn't cover the increased salary of the person directly responsible for this fiasco who has subsequently been promoted, rather than sacked. However, the most worrying thing is that this type of situation is seemingly far from unique. Look around at what is happening elsewhere in the city. Why, for example, is there a private, fee-paying language school operating within Dorothy Stringer during school hours, using facilities intended for local pupils? Who is making money from this scheme? The school is oversubscribed, and yet there is no problem ensuring these foreign students attend classes alongside pupils at the school and benefit from the teaching and facilities. This was all carefully hushed up during Stringer's recent planning application. You won't find any details of the language school on the list of consultees, or any response from those running it, although this language school is clearly a major stakeholder, using the grounds there as well as the classrooms. In fact, it must be pretty unique, being a school without any buildings or land of its own!! Just why should a private educational business be able to gain direct access for their students to publicly-funded facilities that are being denied to ordinary families living in the city? It's a scandal - and there's plenty more in similar vein..... fredflintstone1
  • Score: 4

10:53pm Tue 19 Aug 14

HJarrs says...

Moan, moan moan.

What nonsense you lot post.

The sheep grazing is primarily to preserve the rare south downs chalk grassland biotope, that contains many rare insects and plants that would otherwise rapidly disappear as succession takes hold and scrub begins to take over.
Moan, moan moan. What nonsense you lot post. The sheep grazing is primarily to preserve the rare south downs chalk grassland biotope, that contains many rare insects and plants that would otherwise rapidly disappear as succession takes hold and scrub begins to take over. HJarrs
  • Score: -7

11:56pm Tue 19 Aug 14

fredflintstone1 says...

HJarrs wrote:
Moan, moan moan.

What nonsense you lot post.

The sheep grazing is primarily to preserve the rare south downs chalk grassland biotope, that contains many rare insects and plants that would otherwise rapidly disappear as succession takes hold and scrub begins to take over.
Ah yes! The increasingly rare Great Green Defender (Hanover domesticus), a strictly urban species characterised by an innate desire to regurgitate rubbish whenever challenged. Its numbers are likely to have fallen dramatically by the end of May 2015, possibly to the point of extinction.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Moan, moan moan. What nonsense you lot post. The sheep grazing is primarily to preserve the rare south downs chalk grassland biotope, that contains many rare insects and plants that would otherwise rapidly disappear as succession takes hold and scrub begins to take over.[/p][/quote]Ah yes! The increasingly rare Great Green Defender (Hanover domesticus), a strictly urban species characterised by an innate desire to regurgitate rubbish whenever challenged. Its numbers are likely to have fallen dramatically by the end of May 2015, possibly to the point of extinction. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 4

7:10am Wed 20 Aug 14

HJarrs says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Moan, moan moan.

What nonsense you lot post.

The sheep grazing is primarily to preserve the rare south downs chalk grassland biotope, that contains many rare insects and plants that would otherwise rapidly disappear as succession takes hold and scrub begins to take over.
Ah yes! The increasingly rare Great Green Defender (Hanover domesticus), a strictly urban species characterised by an innate desire to regurgitate rubbish whenever challenged. Its numbers are likely to have fallen dramatically by the end of May 2015, possibly to the point of extinction.
You are avoiding the main reason for altering land management on the edge of the city.
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Moan, moan moan. What nonsense you lot post. The sheep grazing is primarily to preserve the rare south downs chalk grassland biotope, that contains many rare insects and plants that would otherwise rapidly disappear as succession takes hold and scrub begins to take over.[/p][/quote]Ah yes! The increasingly rare Great Green Defender (Hanover domesticus), a strictly urban species characterised by an innate desire to regurgitate rubbish whenever challenged. Its numbers are likely to have fallen dramatically by the end of May 2015, possibly to the point of extinction.[/p][/quote]You are avoiding the main reason for altering land management on the edge of the city. HJarrs
  • Score: -4

8:43am Wed 20 Aug 14

Juleyanne says...

My concern here is in dog walking areas if sheep or lambs are introduced there is bound to be the 'odd' incident. Most dog walkers are responsible around sheep and keep dogs on the lead but you will always get the occasional one who is not or a dog slips it's collar and chases the sheep.
Farmers unfortunately can shoot dogs if the owner is unable to recall the dog immediately. I totally disagree with shooting dogs and believe other less extreme methods should be used such as using a tranquilizer. I also disagree with dogs being allowed to chase sheep but tragically it can happen on occasions where sheep graze and dogs are legally allowed to be walked. The Tye at Telscombe is a classic example. Incidents are few but the risks increase. Introduction of sheep does change the landscape in every sense of the word. I do feel sorry for dog walkers previously able to let their dogs run free. They will need to be extra careful for the sake of their dogs and the sheep.
My concern here is in dog walking areas if sheep or lambs are introduced there is bound to be the 'odd' incident. Most dog walkers are responsible around sheep and keep dogs on the lead but you will always get the occasional one who is not or a dog slips it's collar and chases the sheep. Farmers unfortunately can shoot dogs if the owner is unable to recall the dog immediately. I totally disagree with shooting dogs and believe other less extreme methods should be used such as using a tranquilizer. I also disagree with dogs being allowed to chase sheep but tragically it can happen on occasions where sheep graze and dogs are legally allowed to be walked. The Tye at Telscombe is a classic example. Incidents are few but the risks increase. Introduction of sheep does change the landscape in every sense of the word. I do feel sorry for dog walkers previously able to let their dogs run free. They will need to be extra careful for the sake of their dogs and the sheep. Juleyanne
  • Score: 4

9:51am Wed 20 Aug 14

fredflintstone1 says...

HJarrs wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Moan, moan moan.

What nonsense you lot post.

The sheep grazing is primarily to preserve the rare south downs chalk grassland biotope, that contains many rare insects and plants that would otherwise rapidly disappear as succession takes hold and scrub begins to take over.
Ah yes! The increasingly rare Great Green Defender (Hanover domesticus), a strictly urban species characterised by an innate desire to regurgitate rubbish whenever challenged. Its numbers are likely to have fallen dramatically by the end of May 2015, possibly to the point of extinction.
You are avoiding the main reason for altering land management on the edge of the city.
You mean to stop ordinary people having free access to the land that they've enjoyed for a century or more, so a chosen few profit? It seems the Greens are intent on bringing back enclosures and taking over public land for private gain.

I'm surprised this fits with the Green political ethos that you represent, but hypocricy often thrives when a money-making opportunity involving public funds presents itself.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Moan, moan moan. What nonsense you lot post. The sheep grazing is primarily to preserve the rare south downs chalk grassland biotope, that contains many rare insects and plants that would otherwise rapidly disappear as succession takes hold and scrub begins to take over.[/p][/quote]Ah yes! The increasingly rare Great Green Defender (Hanover domesticus), a strictly urban species characterised by an innate desire to regurgitate rubbish whenever challenged. Its numbers are likely to have fallen dramatically by the end of May 2015, possibly to the point of extinction.[/p][/quote]You are avoiding the main reason for altering land management on the edge of the city.[/p][/quote]You mean to stop ordinary people having free access to the land that they've enjoyed for a century or more, so a chosen few profit? It seems the Greens are intent on bringing back enclosures and taking over public land for private gain. I'm surprised this fits with the Green political ethos that you represent, but hypocricy often thrives when a money-making opportunity involving public funds presents itself. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 2

9:23pm Wed 20 Aug 14

HJarrs says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Moan, moan moan.

What nonsense you lot post.

The sheep grazing is primarily to preserve the rare south downs chalk grassland biotope, that contains many rare insects and plants that would otherwise rapidly disappear as succession takes hold and scrub begins to take over.
Ah yes! The increasingly rare Great Green Defender (Hanover domesticus), a strictly urban species characterised by an innate desire to regurgitate rubbish whenever challenged. Its numbers are likely to have fallen dramatically by the end of May 2015, possibly to the point of extinction.
You are avoiding the main reason for altering land management on the edge of the city.
You mean to stop ordinary people having free access to the land that they've enjoyed for a century or more, so a chosen few profit? It seems the Greens are intent on bringing back enclosures and taking over public land for private gain.

I'm surprised this fits with the Green political ethos that you represent, but hypocricy often thrives when a money-making opportunity involving public funds presents itself.
Gosh, you do talk some rubbish. What access is being denied? There has been progress for many years towards protecting the fragile Downs habitat, traditional sheep grazing is part of that and being primarily scrub and dog toilet is not.
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Moan, moan moan. What nonsense you lot post. The sheep grazing is primarily to preserve the rare south downs chalk grassland biotope, that contains many rare insects and plants that would otherwise rapidly disappear as succession takes hold and scrub begins to take over.[/p][/quote]Ah yes! The increasingly rare Great Green Defender (Hanover domesticus), a strictly urban species characterised by an innate desire to regurgitate rubbish whenever challenged. Its numbers are likely to have fallen dramatically by the end of May 2015, possibly to the point of extinction.[/p][/quote]You are avoiding the main reason for altering land management on the edge of the city.[/p][/quote]You mean to stop ordinary people having free access to the land that they've enjoyed for a century or more, so a chosen few profit? It seems the Greens are intent on bringing back enclosures and taking over public land for private gain. I'm surprised this fits with the Green political ethos that you represent, but hypocricy often thrives when a money-making opportunity involving public funds presents itself.[/p][/quote]Gosh, you do talk some rubbish. What access is being denied? There has been progress for many years towards protecting the fragile Downs habitat, traditional sheep grazing is part of that and being primarily scrub and dog toilet is not. HJarrs
  • Score: -1

11:13pm Wed 20 Aug 14

patres says...

Does anyone take account of the fact that the land now called the Ladies Mile Nature Reserve was covenanted to the people of the Ladies Mile Estate, to be maintained solely for their enjoyment and recreation and not for any other purpose suited to politicians or anyone else. All the councillors know about this but are ignoring it in the hopes that no-one will complain or have the funds to bring a case to court. The Argus knows this too. Why then is this action being allowed to go ahead as it is obviously not a move made for the enjoyment of the local residents?
Does anyone take account of the fact that the land now called the Ladies Mile Nature Reserve was covenanted to the people of the Ladies Mile Estate, to be maintained solely for their enjoyment and recreation and not for any other purpose suited to politicians or anyone else. All the councillors know about this but are ignoring it in the hopes that no-one will complain or have the funds to bring a case to court. The Argus knows this too. Why then is this action being allowed to go ahead as it is obviously not a move made for the enjoyment of the local residents? patres
  • 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