With reference to the article included in the Mercury, I was disgusted at biased reporting by Filey Town Council, when they withheld extracts from the email I sent to the chairman of the council on Thursday October 11, 2012, which included a petition, detailing the names and addresses of 38 people, 18 of who owned businesses in the town and who were all in favour of the leisure centre, in preference to the relocation of Filey offices.
No mention was made of the discussion we held with one of the most prominent businessmen in Filey, Mr Ralph Smart, who like myself, asked what could be gained by moving the council offices 200 metres from one location to another, when we could have a leisure centre on the site.
Anything which would attract the townsfolk, and visitors to the eastern side of the town, instead of them going no further than Tesco’s was welcomed by Mr Smart, and he recognised that a leisure centre was more likely to achieve this objective than relocating the Filey offices.
We were kindly offered by Mr Smart a meeting room in his Buccaneer premises, and although we could not accommodate all of Filey’s ratepayers at this proposed meeting, we could however ask for volunteers to solicit names and addresses, as my wife Jean and I did on Wednesday October 10, 2012, while I thanked Mr Smart for his generous offer but advised him that the views of the electorate had been requested by the council to be returned by October 12, 2012, and he quite rightly reminded me that the council could not refuse us an extension if we had further votes still to obtain, and he suggested we begin by producing some posters advertising the proposed meeting.
In my email I advised the council once all votes have been received for either moving Filey Town Council offices into the former police station building, or demolishing this property and building a leisure centre on the site, one factor to consider is how much is each voter worth to Filey, those who provide employment for other Filey people or those who don’t, and bear in mind those who have businesses pay two lots of rates.
One factor which I did not explain in my email, is that the former police station building, need not be demolished and this would not prohibit the building of a leisure centre, although it would obviously reduce the parking space which would be available.
In addition, if the police found it profitable to vacate their premises and move to the Evron Centre, so why can’t the council show the same initiative and move to the Evron Centre too, as Sam Cross says if it is too expensive for the police, it is too expensive for the council.
Despite the council’s exclusion of my email and its contents which did not favour their cause, they undemocratically, in my view, decided to include in the press their prejudiced views only, as detailed below.
J Robert Dyson