Grumble Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 From the Manx Radio website: The commission of inquiry into the care of young people has been hearing evidence from a residential social worker who worked with Samantha Barton and who was also George Green’s aunt. Liz Curphey made a plea for the buildings at Leece Lodge to be demolished as they were a constant reminder of the two families' grief. Miss Curphey broke down in the witness stand as she told how the families relived the trauma each time they passed the campus where Peter Newbery murdered the two teenagers in February 2002. The government had been asked to flatten the site, she claimed, but no action had been taken and she accused politicians of valuing the structures more than the lives of Samantha and George. As members of George’s family and social workers in the public gallery cried, she went on to say the government had shown the two no respect in life and were now showing none in death. The inquiry continues on Friday morning I know that the house Fred West lived in was demolished, but it doesn't happen that often. The Moors Murders council house outside Manchester is still there I think. I'm also guessing that Leece Lodge is owned by the taxpayers. Just a thought... This whole inquiry has been a real eye-opener so far, and whilst one can feel sympathy for the families wanting to lash out at 'the establishment', is their anger (and the likely cost of knocking down a perfectly sound building) justified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 Personally, I feel the cost IS justified. I know a little about this. It is just a tragedy all round, for all involved. I think that the buildings should be levelled and a memorial garden created on the site. Whatever these kids had or hadn't done, it's a tragic waste of young lives. I feel that deserves some recognition. I think George's sister used to post on Manx net. I'm not sure if she posts on here, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 Personally, I feel the cost IS justified. I know a little about this. It is just a tragedy all round, for all involved. I think that the buildings should be levelled and a memorial garden created on the site. Whatever these kids had or hadn't done, it's a tragic waste of young lives. I feel that deserves some recognition. I think George's sister used to post on Manx net. I'm not sure if she posts on here, though. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deejay Denzel Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I think the same should be done on the summerland site, a lot of tragedy happend there and it is still standing 35 odd years on. They talk about re-developing that site but it is a site that is prone to landslides and big tidal flooding. Why bother. A nice memorial garden would be sufficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontiuspilot Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 it is ridiculous to suggest that there lives are not valued as they are already tragically dead. so that is not a valid piont. government won't do something like that on a whim. they could be testing the strenght of feeling before they make a decision. also the circumstances in relation to the fred west case were quite different as neither of the owners would ever use there house again. leece lodge is government owned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tea&Biscuits Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I dont know much about this case, but have been reading up on it recently. It was tragic, very tragic. I dont know where leese lodge is, but I think at least if they cant knock the buildings down (are they being used?) they should create a memorial garden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Jampton Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I thought the bodies were found in the fields behind the Cottages. I don't think they should be demolished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 neither do I. People die every day, if we start demolishing everywhere somebody died we'd soon have nowt left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I think the same should be done on the summerland site, a lot of tragedy happend there and it is still standing 35 odd years on. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not really. Derby Castle was where the fire tragedy happened and Summerland was built in its place. You will be getting your wish though as they are going to be knocking Summerland down anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Cret, Derby Castle was demolished in the early 1960's (64/65 I think). The Sumerland complex as we know it now was built in two stages, the first was the swimming pool, this was opened in 1969 and the rest of the complex was opened in 1970. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I think that the buildings should be levelled and a memorial garden created on the site. I disagree 100%. It's only a building. You can't make peace with the past by dropping a building. All that matters is that maybe the same mistakes don't get made again. Policy is the only issue. A building is so completely not the issue. And the cost of pulling down that building - and then, almost certainly, having to build something similar -> well that money could be better used at source. Pulling down the building would be a big pointless crowd pleasing gesture. Nothing else. Rename the building if a ceremony absolves people of their guilt. Imagine if they pulled down a youth detention centre every time one of the inmates died. Policy is what matters. Not big gestures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digga Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 You will be getting your wish though as they are going to be knocking Summerland down anyway. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would not bet on it yet as the owners of the clifftop houses have put a injunction on the demolition and have asked for a full report in to what will happen when they remove the current building and the support it has been providing the clifface for the last 30 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Cret, Derby Castle was demolished in the early 1960's (64/65 I think). The Sumerland complex as we know it now was built in two stages, the first was the swimming pool, this was opened in 1969 and the rest of the complex was opened in 1970. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Right, and..... I was just pointing out that Derby Castle was replaced by Summerland (regardless of when, or how many years it was done over). Does rebuilding somewhere twice make it okay more than rebuilding it once? Not having a go by the way, just curious as to why you had to clarify that with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 ... so if someone gets murdered in the Villa Marina, do they demolish that too ? Get real ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Cret, No offence taken, I was just clarifiying that Derby Castle and Sumerland were two diferent buildings. Whilst the Summerland fire dosen't seem that long ago, younger forum users might be under the impression that Summerland as we know it was built after the fire, when in fact it was just the upper levels that were rebuilt. The lower levels are original. Sorry for the rambling answer, just thought that some readers might become confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.