this_is_cat wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:03 am
Chorister makes an extremely good point.
There was a very simple way to have stopped this antisocial behaviour and to not let the facility become the go-to place for bored teens to smoke and get drunk, and the local NIMBY squad protested against it.
Be careful what you wish for - by crying ‘what if’ about a licensed venue serving within clearly-defined hours being a potential cause of noise and drunken behaviour, you’ve created a derelict playground for bored kids to create actual noise and far far worse.
Just think, it could currently be an tidy and well-fenced facility with enough adult footfall until early evening to stop any teens wanting to congregate there.
Instead, the NIMBYs got what they wanted, and I hope are therefore happy to live with the consequences
And that’s before we got onto Julian’s abhorrent assumptions about the class and skin colour of the kids involved
I'm not sure you've read the post correctly. It can't be an assumption if the culprits have been witnessed many times by myself and others, as recently as last Friday. That's a fact. Are you suggesting that white, middle class kids don't commit crime? Perhaps you misread or misunderstood what I wrote?
As for your other points, where do you get the idea that there would have been a football pitch to replace the bowling greens? It's my understanding that it would have been a pitch and putt development, similar to the one at Battersea Park with the addition of an alcohol licence. Football is played on the common backing onto the tennis courts throughout the year as it is, using the light from the floodlights.