UKC

I ask you...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-20310241

In reply to Removed User:

BTW, Savile's Glencoe cottage looks extremely like the one that Hamish Macinnes owned in the 60s (until about mid 70s, I think). Anyone know if my hunch is correct ?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I believe it is.

It is. I urge people to send a tweet to Andrew Baxter at @LochaberVoice - A total knee jerk reaction. I think the hut would be well suited as a mountaineering hut. The idea was floated a while ago after his death.

In reply to Milesy:

Because if there is one medium a politician will take seriously it's twitter.

In reply to davidbeynon:

Good point - we should ask MumsNet to take it on instead.

Politicans will act on anything that makes them look popular in the public eye...so, keeping the house will be the result of his hearing more media and internet noise than that noise made by the 'burn the paedo house!' camp.

In reply to Removed User:

Seems perfectly reasonable to raise the question to me. Are you outraged?

In reply to Saor Alba: Eeeeuuuuu im more outraged by the name "Mumsnet".
Its a HOUSE. Whoever thinks this should be demolished because it used to be owned by a paedophile needs to get a grip. They should be focussing on the people vandalising it.

In reply to Jamming Dodger:

I know that Fred West's house was demolished - it's now a peace garden (I believe). I was about to start rambling on about how spaces hold memories and how people might not want to stay in a paedophile's house, despite it being used for good things (if it became a disabled retreat, mountaineering hut etc) and then I remembered that this is Glencoe, where I believe there was a bit of a massacre a while back <ahem> so then I thought better of it

In reply to Jamming Dodger:
Whoever thinks this should be demolished because it used to be owned by a paedophile needs to get a grip.

Presumably the owners would want a say in whether a property worth several hundred thousand pounds to them is demolished. I suppose the "local community" the councillor refers to might be willing to pay for this.

Or maybe the councillor is just using this to get his name in the paper (and succeeding).

In reply to Removed User:

Seems a pity to demolish it. It would make a good mountaineering club hut.

In reply to Jamming Dodger:

Yeah - I suppose there's always the option of tearing it down and building something on the footprint, though that seems a bit of a shame for a perfectly serviceable building that had an interesting history pre-Savile, i.e. Hamish MacInnes.

In reply to Saor Alba: No, it's perfectly pathetic to raise the question. Unless of course you think that any property that has been owned by a paedophile should be demolished.

In reply to Removed User: True, but surely thats the decision by whoever chooses to buy it or use it.
I like the mountaineering hut idea btw.
I know JS was bit of a wiley pervert, but I dont think we can hang even him on the same butchers hook as someone like Fred West, who murdered and abused several girls.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

No I don't think that which is the reason I didn't say that.

If it's becoming an eyesore for whatever reason and people are raising the question (they are, I was in Fort William last night) then it's fair to raise the question. UKC is so conservative these days that even raising a question provokes outrage.

In reply to Saor Alba: I agree that Fort William is a bit of an eyesore but pulling it down seems excessive.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Fair enough. But hypothetically, what happens when the quesion raised generates genuine outrage? What do we do then - nothing?

In reply to Fraser:

You then resort to UKC and express your outrage in typical dismissive fashion hopefully making the point that all councillors are stupid and internet posters living hundreds of miles away and with no local dimension are always right. Once you do that the world becomes much simpler.

In reply to Tall Clare:

I think Fred West's house is a very different case - what with all the bodies that were buried there.

I think it would be a shame if the house were demolished. It's a perfectly decent cottage in a stunning location, which could be used very well by a whole host of organisations or individuals. I do think it seems a bit of a kneejerk reaction to want it to be demolished.

In reply to Fraser:

But everything raises 'genuine outrage' at the moment...people won't be outraged about the house next week.

Sure, they'll still be outraged about the whole 'Jimmy shagged kids' thing but something else will have taken up the outrage space the house currently occupies.

In reply to tony:

True - just giving an example of a demolished house. As you say, it's very different, not least because whilst we don't know whether Savile did anything in his Glencoe cottage, we do know that murders took place at Fred West's house.

In reply to Removed User:

There is also the question of the charities which benefit from his Will, demolishing the cottage would substantially devalue the place, which reduces the value of his estate and ultimately affects these charities who are going to have an already substantially reduced slice once his victim's claims have been met.

All very messy, but demolition seems a retrograde step, based on knee jerk emotion.

In reply to Tall Clare:

One solution would be to rename it 'MacInnes's Cottage', have a plaque on the wall commemorating that he lived there, and turn it into a climbers' hut as suggested. I.e Obliterate its Savile connections.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Nice and straightforward. Marks a good spot for education - or, as is perhaps the case with the vandalism, ned-ucation.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

This is a very reasonable and rational thing to do.

But the problem when you are trying to be rational and reasonable with someone who isn't, is that they don't see the 'reason'

I don't think the sort of person who defiles a pretty location because it was owned by a deceased kiddy fiddler is the type to take on board your reasonable response.


My take, leave it for a year or two to see if the vandalism stops.If it does, every egg's a budgie.

If it doesn't, review and possibly demolish.
Sad that some people act the way they do, but that's life.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

That would be a splendid solution, celebrating something positive.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:
I don't think that's a fair reflection of what the councillor has actually said. He's only suggested that demolition might be an option if that was the consensus of the local community. And, it's not for him to take the decision, so whether he takes Gordon's suggestion on board is not the be all and end all of the situation.

In reply to tony:

I wasn't commenting on what the councillor has said.
I think what he's said is fine....... there is a problem, he's looking at possible solutions. I think it's better that than pretend there is no problem.

I just think that the kind of person who commits these acts has already shown that 'reason' doesn't feature into their actions, so it's unlikely a reasonable solution will work.

As I said, my take, leave it for a while to see if it stops. If not....... act.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

I'm confused. Who were you referring to when you said:

"I don't think the sort of person who defiles a pretty location because it was owned by a deceased kiddy fiddler is the type to take on board your reasonable response."

Is it the same person/people as:

"I just think that the kind of person who commits these acts has already shown that 'reason' doesn't feature into their actions, so it's unlikely a reasonable solution will work."

In reply to tony:

Yes.

I.E. The people doing the vandalism are hardly likely to care if there is a board outside saying someone else once owned it too.

Vandalising the place in the first place is hardly a rational response.

In reply to tony:

Seconded.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

although he might not actually want his name affixed to the building in view of it's notoriety

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
An excellent suggestion, Gordon
AS a highlander, I think too many decent homes have been obliterated in the Highlands over the generations.
Now, the statue to the Duke of Sutherland and the Brocket Memorial are more to my demolition inclinations.

In reply to tony:

Great idea. I wonder if anyone, or any CC could really afford to buy it and run it as a climbers' hut though?

Any idea how much it's worth?

In reply to Southern Man:

I imagine that in an accessible location like that, if it was run on a booking basis, it'd be booked up pretty much every week of the year.

In reply to Tall Clare:

True, but even so, I wonder how long it would take to break even. Must be worth an absolute fortune and I doubt most clubs have that sort of capital.

In reply to Removed User:

i don't think this goes far enough. Glen Coe should be dammed and flooded, not out of respect for the victims, but all those that feel 'uneasy' that a paedo might have lived there.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I think there were already plans to turn it into a respite centre which seems like a good idea but not under the Saville Trust. Highland Hospice might be a good one also although it is about 10 metres from a major trunk road.

In reply to tony:

Agreed