Nasaroc,
I think it is a real shame that time and again you accuse me of holding views that bear no relation to my postings and comments, and then demand answers from me and others when you are clearly not prepared to read what we have written or listen to our opinions. Instead you try to smear anybody who even shows the vaguest sign of differing from your position.

You should be aware that I have called on the council to consult in a variety of ways and I expect to continue to do so once we have further information. I believe I played an important part in getting the consultation that we did get and the public meeting that was organised on the day after the listing, as well as a previous meeting in May between council officers and the public which you attended.

I hope that you will recognise that I do have a high regard for democracy, consultation, and the views of local people. My actions have taken account of this. That does not mean that everybody will agree with everything I say, nor do I expect them to, that is a vital part of democracy. During the period of the consultation I did not try to impose my views on anybody or influence how people would respond to the consultation, I even refused when invited to publicly comment on the Sydenham Society plans for housing on the site despite my serious reservations about the plans. What I did do was encourage other people to respond to the consultation having made up their own minds.

The listing was not a democratic process as you have accepted, and you have little evidence that this is what the people of Forest Hill or Sydenham actually want. Both of the consultations in 2006 and 2008 have suggested that the public would accept a new building replacing the existing pools (particularly the consultation in 2006 where the majority were rightly ignored because a one pool option was not good enough). HOWEVER, there are still good reasons for preservation that cannot always be overruled by democracy - that is why English Heritage does not ask local residents to vote on the listing of buildings and the only democratic representative involved is the Secretary of State. Rather than debating what the majority think, it would be best to work for a solution that gives the local community what is needed and all options should be considered by the council and by local residents, societies, and campaign groups.

Your argument about "no demolition without democracy" suggests that if there is another vote for demolition of the pools, and possibly a vote for demolition of Louise House, that you would support the democratic decision to demolish a listed building. Under such circumstances would you and STFFH accept demolition of both properties?

Of course this takes us away from the real discussion that we should be having about how we get swimming on the site at the earliest possible opportunity. I would still like to see an outcome that can be accepted and see swimming on the site in time for the London Olympics and I hope that everybody involved will try to make this happen.