Respectful my arse.

I strongly suspect you aren't wrong either!

Now (partly) under the M8

But a problem particular to Glasgow? In my lived experience, not, it's a symptom of a flagging economy and, I dare say, an ailing state...

I took the liberty of commemorating the event by giving giving the unnamed lane on the old property line the name of 'Thorndyke Lane', in reference to the lands of Thorn and the demolished dyke.

Harvey be damned!

Harvey's Dyke?

Especially self-appointed gatekeepers

access encouraging antisocial behaviour would seem to be the source of most of the consternation around this idea of an eastern access point. It's a very strange position for them to now take given that increased accessibility was one of the main aims of the Friends in securing a future for the site

Thanks for clarifying, confirms what I'd understood already, that the main objections are those being raised by the current FGN committee. FGN's apparent amnesia surrounding the background of this proposal (given it was amongst the original aspirations in 2005) and disingenuous arguments around...

Quick - get her everybody! 😂

Ach it's all just a matter of experiences on that point, and healthy disagreement can be very productive! So thanks again to you too :)

Yeah

I wouldn't dream of doubting your sincerity, we all want the best for our built and lived environment, even when it's a cemetery. But the Friends committee are dead wrong on this. I'd love to know for sure why the committee has changed their stance on this but they aren't for telling

I getcha, please dont think Im trying to shoot the messenger as it were, I appreciate your conversation:) I'm also stating information in the public domain, gut facts rather than conjecture and rhetoric being spread by the Friends committee. From experience I disagree with your last point though

The only concerns FGN and the CC seem to be citing are antisocial behaviour and some as yet unqualified existential threat. Its all hyperbole based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts, the processes and aim

It's a listed site, any changes need planning approval, there are no planning submissions, no planning application for a gate has been approved. You're conflating a funding award with planning approval, they're nothing to do with each other

All smacks of nimbyism and ego on behalf of the FGN committee tbh

No gate has been approved. A funding award is not a planning submission let alone approval, hence the consultation. There seems to be a lot of confusion being sewn by the position being taken by the Friends group but a new gate is not an existential threat to the Necropolis