Is The Swindon Link
and www.swindonlink.com
afflicted by bias and distortion?

Monday 3 May 2004
From: Phil Allen, West Swindon resident
To: Roger Ogle, Publisher/Editor, Swindon Link and www.swindonlink.com

As a resident of West Swindon for many years and a Swindonian born & breed, I write to complain regarding the obviously biased views your magazine has taken regarding the new stadium proposal. Whilst I recognise you are free to publish any material you wish, I believe you are doing a great disservice to your readership.

Only indicating the possible negative points of the development and attempting to give the impression that the vast majority of residents are against the proposal, surely goes against the values and the whole basis of a community magazine, which I assume is to represent all views in said community.

Without exception, the friends and neighbours I have spoken to have either been for the stadium because of the much needed sporting & leisure facilities it will bring for the whole town, or are simply indifferent to it, seeing it as another development in West Swindon along with Cell Ops, Skurrays and the recently completed warehouses in the area.

Whilst there are always positive & negative views on any development in any location, I find the coverage you are giving the opponents of this brown-field development in strange contrast to your silence on the green-field' development in northern Swindon. In fact your web-site even contains advertising from the developers in Priory Vale.

I wouldn't wish to accuse anyone of hypocrisy, but I would suggest your continued bias stance on this issue will only alienate or annoy a large number of your potential readers even further.

My personal view is that if we only have to sacrifice an area which is currently used as a rubbish tip in order to gain a state of the art sporting resource the whole town can enjoy, then we should grab it with both hands.



From: Roger Ogle
To: Phil Allen

Thanks for your comments which will be added to the web site. They are the first and, so far, only accusations of bias I have had.

As you say, I am in a position to take a view on the proposal and make it well known, which, to reinforce the article in the May edition and the articles I have written on the web site, is entirely in opposition. STFC is considering such a profound change which will effect the lives of a huge number of people and their proposal has no positive merit at all.

Nobody is against a new stadium for the club but because STFC have suddenly said they want the forest site for it does not make the proposal acceptable. However much they dress it up with fancy ideas of a sports village, they won't be paying for it, now will the developer.

Moreover if it means the council tax payer is expected to happily let a failing council do deals with a bankrupt football club which results in greater profits of a development company worth multi-millions, then there are many, many questions which everybody has to ask.

I should like to hear more from your neighbours. Ask them to look at the site and mail their views. The 'for the stadium' page is a bit thin in terms of numbers and rational comment.

With regard to the North Swindon development, there is no comparison - the battle was lost many years ago The debate took place during the 1980s and planning permission was granted in the early 1990s.

From the turnout of objectors at the consultation on 29 April and the protest on 1 May I would suggest The Link is voicing the views of the majority that the stadium proposal is ill considered. As more information emerges, I believe this number will grow.



Tuesday 4 May 2004
From: Phil Allen
To: Roger Ogle

Thanks for your prompt reply. However, I do not feel you have answered my basic concern regarding representation of both sets of opinion, on this or other future matters, in what claims to be a 'community magazine'.

How you can say with any authority or accuracy that 'the views of the majority' are against the development is totally beyond me. From a borough population of approximately 190,000 and I would imagine a population of 40-50,000 in West & Northern Swindon I have only seen a handful of letters & messages on your website and in the other local media against the sports village. A colleague who was passing last Saturday put the protest at a 'few hundred' which again is only a tiny minority of the local population. In producing a magazine which purports to be for the community one should not promote one's own views and those of one's friends & acquaintances as if they represented the opinions of the whole community. In doing so, I believe you are not only creating a falsehood but will also severely undermine any confidence your readership may have in the future that they are receiving unbiased coverage of any particular topic. Should your magazine continue with it's current one sided views on certain subjects it should clearly state on the front cover that it only represents the views of a particular individual, organisation, group or political party and does not attempt to cover the views of whole community or population. I'm sure you would not wish to inadvertently mislead people as to the contents of your publication.

My point regarding the range of large-scale development in the local area also remains relevant. Every resident of Sparcells & Peatmoor without exception live on land that up until 15 to 20 years ago was beautiful open green-fields. Therefore I would assume that they have no particular issue with development of 'natural' areas or they would clearly choose to live elsewhere. With this in mind, I find the sudden jumping on board the 'environmental band-wagon' of some of these residents with reference to Shaw tip somewhat puzzling.



Sunday 16 May 2004
From: Phil Allen
To: Roger Ogle

As time passes, I have still yet to see any evidence what so ever that the majority of the population are against this new development. Having continued discussions with friends, neighbours, colleagues and acquaintances I find the majority opinion is the exact opposite to what you state.

I look forward to the article in your next edition stating that the magazine's assessment is a totally uncorroborated assumption on your part, and also that your publication only represents the views of a small minority group.



From: Roger Ogle
To: Phil Allen

I would suggest you are don't want to accept what has been happening for the last month

• 2,000 people at Roughmoor social hall,
• police estimate of 1,500 at 1 May protest,
• fewer than 500 at the County Ground on 6 May, many of whom prefer the club at the site rather than 400 plus houses, and many town supporters very unsure about the club making financial commitments which might pull it down in the future,
• 450 people at the Shaw Residents' Association meeting on 10 May
• comments supporting the continuation of the forest park by the Prime Minister's advisor on sustainable development.

With regard to your central accusation about the bias in The Link, I should like to confirm my view that commercial development of the forest park is wrong. There is no definition of what a community magazine is or how it should behave; there are very few around which are similar to The Link. It's also a business which I own.

So I get to make up the rules, define the magazine's view of the world and the line it takes on particular issues. As far as the forest -v- stadium is concerned, I have spoken to a very large number of people and I also have history on my side in taking the stance I have.

Until 19 March nobody knew of the STFC proposal. However I have reported and photographed the development of the country park as part of the Great Western Community Forest for over ten years, including the three community tree planting days attended by between 8 and 10,000 people. I don't regard their commitment as cheap and meaningless and I'm not going to betray their investment in a project they believed would make a difference for the children and grandchildren.

The fact that West Swindon is built on farmland after decisions were made by Swindon Council in the late 1960s and early 1970s to expand the town bears no relation to the present proposal. The people who moved into the area came here on the understanding that the council was working with them to create a country park in their midst. The fact that the same council, with a different membership save one of two, is willing to sell out on a policy they bought into is unacceptable. Don't expect me to be equally duplicitous.

Nevertheless the June Link, as well as covering the events of the last month, will also include an article by St Modwen Properties as to why their proposal is good for Swindon and statements by the leaders of the Conservative and Labour groups on the council.

---

Comments:

From: Rachael Williams

When I first moved to Swindon, I was amazed that the area of West Swindon had such a good and professional 'freebie'. I remember speaking to you at St Mary's telling you how impressed I was and that it was such a positive view on life in a place that is often knocked as being heartless, lifeless and soulless.

I have always enjoyed reading the magazine and have been able to use my intelligence to know when it has been someones personal opinions against fact.

With regard to the forest being replaced with a football stadium, we all have our own personal opinions about this but the fact is that the very people we voted in to do the best for West Swindon are going back on the promise of a community forest.

If a stadium is to be built there, then where is our replacement forest going to be? We have been entrusted with this earth for the good of the coming generations. I don't want to be part of the generation that will be remembered as having done nothing to stop such a huge misuse of power and land. I am all for a stadium etc. but do not believe this is the right place for it to be.

You have my full support on this.



From: Sheridan Fisher

Well done Roger, an excellent answer as always. I do wish that people would stop calling the site the Old Shaw Tip. It was renamed Shaw Community Forest over a decade ago. If they can't get that correct, how can they even suggest they may get anything else right?

Whilst we continue to understand their desire for a new stadium (but don't want them to destroy our forest in the process) they will not even begin to try and understand let alone accept our continued fight to save our forest.



From: Marc Tielemans

Good on you! I can't believe what this bloke is saying. I haven't met a single person yet who is in favour of the development.

And like you say, it's your magazine. For what it's worth, I'd rather read The Link than many of today's popular newspapers. The great strength of The Link is your history in my view. You have covered West Swindon for such a long time and people in this part of Swindon see you as representing our views. Keep up the good work, you are doing a great job for the community.



From: Jim Withey

I read your reply with interest. The fact of the matter is when my neighbours and myself decided to move to Sparcells, there was no talk of a stadium.

Perhaps Mr Allen should make him self available to come round the district and he can talk to the local residents. I'm sure they would make him alter his forthright views about this state of the art sporting resource which are totally crazy.

It would cause an environmental disaster. The majority of residents I have spoken to would prefer a tip.



From: Marilyn Beale

I'll offer my support to you and the Link Mag. One of the reasons I have been trying to get it delivered in Penhill is that it has always remained true to your community background. In contrast to this Phil person, I have yet to hear anyone be for the stadium there. Not only that, although a few councillors have come out against the stadium move, have we heard yet from the councillors are for it? Anyway, the bias is more than balanced by the rest of the media!.

I can't understand this continuing. It makes a mockery of all SBC local structure plans, strategies etc. Those who turned out to plant trees on the forest didn't instigate the forest plan, Swindon Council did - we just answered the call to make it happen.



From: Sheridan Fisher

I have just re-read the comments posted on the website by people in favour of developing Shaw Forest Country Park into a football stadium, trying to understand why they think it is the best site.

The only reason that I have found is that it is better to use brown land than green. I agree with this and, if I thought for one minute that developing a brown site would save green sites, then I might consider supporting the proposal. We all know that this is not the case. Swindon will continue to expand until one day it envelops all the surrounding villages. The Shaw Forest Country Park is not suitable for essential properties (and therefore of little financial value), but green sites are, which is why, as Phil Allen points out Sparcells, Peatmoor and the new northern development have all gone ahead, and why we are unable to save such sites as the Front Garden.

However a promise was made by our council many years ago to turn this brown site green and it is essential that we keep them to it, because one day this maybe one of the only green sites left in Swindon. By developing this brown site we will NOT save green sites, we WILL merely loose both sites.

The main thing which strikes me when reading these comments is the way the site is labelled, for example: Old Shaw Tip, a small dirty hill with some small trees and diggers on it, brownfield wasteland, some trees on a tip, rat infested wasteland, rubbish tip, dumping ground and the list goes on. It appears that if people give it a derogatory name they feel it gives them the right to destroy it.

The site was renamed Shaw Forest Country Park over a decade ago when the community first started planting the 46,000 trees now flourishing on it. And, in response to Phil's observation, yes, it does take a long time to grow a forest and we are only just beginning to see the fruits of our labour. I suggest that if people actually accepted this fact and admitted that they are in favour of destroying Shaw Forest Country Park they just might feel a tiny twinge of guilt?

The Swindon Forest Protection Group do not belittle the ambitions of Swindon Town Football supporters, in fact many of them are fans themselves. Why is it then that a few supporters are so determined to ridicule us and will not understand that our values, although different from theirs, are equally as important. Why do they refuse to accept that we are NOT trying to stop STFC building a new stadium, but we cannot agree to them building it on our Country Park?



From: Leonora Murray, Shaw - 30 May 2004

I have read with interest Phil Allen's comments and would like to point out that I was at the protest march and am happy to confirm that there were at least 1,500 people there, possibly more. Everyone that I have spoken to in the Shaw area is absolutely against the development of Shaw Country Park (not Shaw Tip - please note)

I am horrified that Phil Allen can take this line. Apparently if you do not agree with his viewpoint you are biased and a liar (i.e. number of people at march). I take offence at that last remark. I haven't had my word doubted before!

Keep going Roger, you are doing fine, and as an old hack, I think that you have taken a reasonable line whilst supporting THE MAJORITY of your readers. Please don't waste your valuable time replying to this man's rants. WE LOVE WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

---

Stadium Proposal Index | SwindonLink Home

---