On the soap box again.

[Wholley]

The Royal Star and Garter Home in Richmond(No not Virginia)Was set up by The British Women's Hospital Commitee in 1916 to care for some of the men who returned limbless,mutilated or shell-shocked during WW1.
Under the auspices of Queen Mary and opened by King George V.It opened in 1924.It was built entirely by charitable donations but now with the connivance of the one-eyed Scotsman and the get rich quick kids it is to be closed and sold to the highest bidder.
Situated on Richmond Hill overlooking the Thames it's a beautiful building that could be used to offer respite to this generation of Servicemen and Women,and not sold to yuppies as smart apartments.
Tell me what you think but as I no longer am able to vote in the UK someone else will have to set up a petition.

[MSI64]

I run Richmond park most weekends and walk past this beautiful building, I have often just stood and had a moment just looking.

It would be a shame and downright criminal for this piece of history to be sold. Its bad enough that I have to watch The Academy at Woolwich become a building site for flats for the rich but this is outrageous.

Gordon what else are you going to sell off????????

[Tab]

The question should be just who owns this building, if I remember rightly it is owned by the Royal British Legion. Now I wonder why it can't be used to house the wounded from Afghanistan or has the RBL just turned into a business.

[MSI64]

Surely the RBL isnt it that much financial trouble????

[Pilgrim Norway]

Good idea Wholley - though I'm ex-pat too -

Get a name to start off a petition - I'm in -

The UK needs places like this - is it really the British Legion who is selling ?

[Wholley]

The home is not owned by the RBL.
For more information have a skeg through this.

http://www.starandgarter.org/index.html

[MSI64]

So a new one is being built to replace the one at Richmond then, that doesnt sound so bad.

However if a new place is being built and the sale of the old place is to bring up funds for it then I cant see any problem with it

[Wholley]

Three new ones are to be built with much lower capacity and less sustainability than the existing building and dependent on the sale of the original in Richmond.
"If it ain't broke,don't fix it"Comes to mind.
The web page is a little misleading which is why I was a little reticent to put it here.

[foxtrotoscar]

Hi folks

I am new to this site so please be "gentle".

Before I consider embarking on another "mission" I need your updates/input.

I received today a "note" via a friend that the Star & Garter in Richmond, Surrey is being off loaded etc and flogged of to some developer to feed the needs of Yuppies in the area. Therefore ignoring the well earned needs of our service men.

Having just checked the site of S&R it seems they are owned by a charity "The Royal Star & Garter". After wafting thru a few pages it also seems that the "board" decided that updates were needed and One is already open as a previous scriber has noted. Another on the way, and are searching for a final 3rd location.

What I need to be aware of is; Has the "Scotsman" pushed the Charity to do this or has the Board overwhelmingly voted for this as the future to go forward and provide better facilities. The cash being raised by the sale of the current location would actually do this.

What we dont want is nostalgia to get in the way of progress, dont get me wrong I am no "tootsie" when it comes to pushing buttons and trying to get things done. We just have to make sure that its the right avenue to follow.

Check out my website for the 2 "missions" that I have fronted on my website. Keir Hardie was instigated by me after a tip off from a fellow member on OAMAAM. The second being Joe Townsend, (yet again, tipped off by OAMAAM) of which my site only played a part as being a place to obtain vital links and updates for like minded people to make their voice heard etc.........

Any responses welcome.....................

[Wholley]

First of all,
Welcome aboard foxtrotoscar.
The latest information I have regarding the Star and Garter House was gleaned from Private Eye's"Nooks and Corners"
What stood out in the article was that the three new buildings will cost more to maintain than the current one with reduced services to those in need.
It appears that the decision was made by one single governor and not by the whole board.
I smell conflict of interest here but I'm not going to yell from the roof-tops until I find more evidence.
Say hi to Pilgrim for me.

[foxtrotoscar]

Hiya Wholley

MMMMmmm....... Sounds a bit suss to me. Here we go again (one board member) why is it always one board member?

Could he/she have interests;
1. In the Developers who are interested in the site.
or
2. The Charity is under pressure to come up with funds which enables them to retain their "charitable status".
or
3. Not only could funds be made available as in (2) but further grants being made for new developments etc.

This scenario could only come about if Shenannigans are involved.......

Concerning (1), this could enable the board member (if an interest is present) to be gifted a property in the new development as a retainer/thank you.

Or

Concerning (2), this could be a bit iffy if (1) fell in to play here and a board member was pocketing "funds" or some sort of mismanagement was to blame to cause the charity in question to take this action.

Or

Concerning (3), because of new developments so many grants and tax concessions become available and "the board" decides who gets what concerning ££ for what ever project (another anomaly here) this could actually get them 3 brand new rest homes and also balance the books at the same time.

Something like this can be a real nest of vipers and is so difficult to investigate further. A petition of sorts could be initiated in this instance but until we get real hard facts (plus a few names and telephone numbers etc) there is not a lot that can be done.

If we let it roll as usual and let the redevelopment of "richmond" take place, then it would be easy to check the developers and out find out who the directors are, who owns the new properties and then check companies house for the accounts......... If anything suss came up then the other 2 developments could be checked the same way.

If anything came out of that then "the grenade could be thrown". Had a petition etc been done at eh beginning prior to the first development then it would have been easier, diving in head first amidships is not the way to go.

Sorry about this long and drawn out "reply" but I felt it was needed in order to try and explain my thoughts............

keep it moist..................foxtrotoscar...............

[Pilgrim Norway]

:multi:

[foxtrotoscar]

For you "Trog"

http://rob767.tripod.com/lvgood.wav

[Pilgrim Norway]

Thought so .....

"
This file is hosted by Tripod, a Lycos®Network Site, and is not available for download. Please check out Tripod's Help system for more information about Remote Loading and our Remote Loading policy.
"

No go .....

[foxtrotoscar]

Hey Pilgrim

I know what I did wrong, should have linked it to my website and not tried a bit of "bandwidth theft". I realise now..........sorry...............

Tried to search for this sites remote loading policy but couldnt find it, must be blind or stupid. (no reply required on that one) Can you give me a link for that...please?

Dont need the other one, seen it and realise the cock up now.

Thought so .....

"
This file is hosted by Tripod, a Lycos®Network Site, and is not available for download. Please check out Tripod's Help system for more information about Remote Loading and our Remote Loading policy.
"

No go .....