|
THE ANTI-TRAIL CAMPAIGN |
| It is inevitable that a project
such as the Wharfedale Trail will not attract support from every section of the
public. The Forum recognises that
everbody has a right to express his or her
own opinion, and accepts that many people hold genuine concerns over some aspects the
project, which can only be addressed through open discussion. The current public consultation was designed to
facilitate this by seeking the views of everybody concerned, be they for the
trail or opposed to it.
Regrettably, within the section of the community who are not in favour of the Wharfedale Trail, there exists a hard core minority of individuals who not only are against the trail itself, but are also desperate to prevent the public being consulted on the proposal. The tactics of this group range from the legitimate, through the dubious, and in the case of certain individuals, the downright criminal. Speculation as to the motives of these people has no place here; however it should be noted that the organisers of the Wharfedale Trail Forum have fought for over two years to bring this project to a stage where the public would have the opportunity to have their say on the matter. The anti-trail hard core are meanwhile determined to ensure that nobody's views are heard but their own . |
|
DISINFORMATION A website has been produced and leaflets distributed, with the objective of persuading the public to "Vote NO" to the Wharfedale Trail. This in itself is disingenuous; what is presently taking place is a consultation, not a referendum. Furthermore, whilst not actually illegal, the use of the title "The Wharfedale Trail" in the web address is nothing more than a blatant attempt to confuse the public. It is not the aim of the Wharfedale Trail Forum to encourage people to "vote" one way or another; rather to present the facts and allow each individual to make an informed judgement. We believe that the contents of the anti-trail website and leaflets speak for themselves, so are happy to provide these links: Website: www.thewharfedaletrail.co.uk To view the leaflets, click here |
|
DISRUPTION During Part one of the consultation, anti-trail campaigners attempted to disrupt the process by picketing the public exhibitions. This was at first tolerated as legitimate protest, until certain individuals began to behave in an intimidating manner, both to members of the public and to those manning the exhibition. Consequently, it was felt necessary to ask those involved to leave the premises, also to request a police presence at further exhibitions. Additionally, a number of blank response forms were misappropriated; this illegal action was later cited as evidence that the consultation was flawed, due to the possibility of multiple responses! Protests during Part Two of the consultation tended to be a little more low-key, primarily restricted to picketing of exhibitions and distribution of the second leaflet, the content of which has been universally condemned, to the extent that some of those responsible for its production and distribution have since attempted to disassociate themselves from it. |
|
DEFAMATION Rather than present a case against the Wharfedale Trail based on rational argument and logic, certain campaigners have chosen instead to attempt to undermine public confidence in the consultation process by conducting a vicious smear campaign against the Wharfedale Trail Forum organiser, Andrew Scull, and against Jeff McQuillan, who was engaged by the Forum to conduct the consultation exercise. These cowardly attacks have consisted not only of childish name-calling, but also of libellous allegations, including vote-rigging, corruption and embezzlement. Those responsible for these attacks lack the courage to identify themselves, but clearly believe that posting their comments anonymously on the internet places then beyond reach of any libel law. Two separate complaints have been made to the Standards Board for England, both making various allegations of misconduct against Andrew Scull, with regard to the Wharfedale Trail consultation and his role as a member of Addingham Parish Council. On both occasions, the decision of the Standards Board was that there was NO CASE TO ANSWER. Likewise, a complaint was made against Jeff McQuillan, to the Royal Town Planning Institute. This alleged that a conflict of interest arose as a result of Mr. McQuillan's previous work for Sustrans, and was used by some as a pretext to call for his removal from the consultation process. The verdict of the Royal Town Planning Institute? -NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST. (see also: news) |
|
THEFT As reported elsewhere, an attempt was made to sabotage Part Two of the Wharfedale Trail public consultation, by the theft of a large number of completed response forms from the return box in Ilkley library. This delayed the completion of the consultation by approximately 4 months. |