Big response to call for Chartist mural ideas

South Wales Argus: Big response to call for Chartist mural ideas Big response to call for Chartist mural ideas

MORE than 200 responses to a consultation for a replacement for the Chartist Mural are being trawled by officers after the exercise shut last Saturday.

But the results are not yet known with Newport council saying submissions and comments from members of the public are now being reviewed.

A further announcement is expected in the New Year.

The consultation for a replacement memorial was launched following the controversy over the destruction of the Chartist Mural in October, sparked over its timing ahead of a demonstration in support.

But since the questionnaire was set-up on the Newport Council website Hollywood star Michael Sheen became involved in the debate, agreeing to be a founder trustee of a new trust to back a new commemoration to the Chartists.

The results of the questionnaire – effectively in part a vote – will be passed to the new trust, which will receive £50,000 for the cost of the commemoration.

Under the consultation people who took part could vote whether they would like to see a mural, a painting, a relief panel or a digital projection in Newport Market.

But it also asked residents if they have any alternative suggestions for the artwork.

It is likely that the new trust will want to further consult on the ideas, with the possibility of some form of a ballot before a final decision is made.

The trust will also be raising money internationally and nationally for commemoration.

Further details of the trust, including who else other than Mr Sheen will be a trustee, have yet to be announced.

The consultation deadline for the questionnaire was extended from the end of October to the end of November.

The Chartist Mural commemorated the 1839 armed Newport Chartist Rising when thousands marched to Newport – more than 20 Chartists were killed or died of their injuries.

A Newport council spokeswoman said yesterday: “Newport City Council received more than 200 responses to its consultation on a replacement for the Chartist mural.

“The results and comments will now be reviewed and there will be a further announcement in the New Year.”

Comments (1)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:54pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Indigo Pete says...

The so called consultation document or questionnaire was a farce. It didn’t consult at all is just gave 4 preferences which, were not thought out and revealed the authors crass ignorance of The Arts whilst insulting the intelligence of the people of Newport.

If the consultation document could have been filled out as was promised, with the readers own ideas, the response could have been 2000 responses rather than just a couple of hundred.

The questionnaire was originally designed to be a mandatory field in order to capture public opinion on 4 preferences. NOT to really consult the public of Newport what they wanted, their choice !
Just 4 short sighted preferences by a pen pusher in an office !
Again it was the council dictating to the people AGAIN.

BUT after Cllr Miqdad of Stow Hill complained, the council were instructed to change the questionnaire to give the options, where the public could write their suggestions.

I wouldn't want to question the council’s ability to communicate in English but, this is the definition of an option

"The act of choosing; choice. See Synonyms at choice. 2. The power or freedom to choose"

Obviously the consultation / questionnaire did not have options, so please why not and why the did the council think they could get away with what they did?
Was it in the vain attempt to manipulate the people of Newport into thinking they had a choice?

Wouldnt that be dangerous to give the people of Newport a voice ?

According to the Argus article
Cllr Miqdad Al-Nuaimi criticised the website questionnaire “I was very disappointed. I thought you would have an opportunity to say something. If we want to have feedback from people I think we need to do more than just ask them would they want to have a mural, a painting, a relief or a digital projection.”

Shortly after he made his comments an additional option was added asking residents if they had an idea for an alternative artwork or location.
The form should have been changed to incorporate a wider agenda which was not followed up by the council ..what a surprise !

There should have been two options given on the form.
Option 1 and Option 2. indeed it says there are two but in practice it was not a choice

In reality the public was forced to choose a preference from Option 1.

Enforcing the user to engage in a preference is NOT a choice. It is NOT an option but an obligatory act.

It is not what Miqdad meant ,it is not what was put out in the press and it was NOT explained on the form.

Once again it is glaringly obvious the council did not properly consult the people.

I would have thought that surely, by now, after the mural disaster, the council would have learnt its lesson.
Obviously not!
The so called consultation document or questionnaire was a farce. It didn’t consult at all is just gave 4 preferences which, were not thought out and revealed the authors crass ignorance of The Arts whilst insulting the intelligence of the people of Newport. If the consultation document could have been filled out as was promised, with the readers own ideas, the response could have been 2000 responses rather than just a couple of hundred. The questionnaire was originally designed to be a mandatory field in order to capture public opinion on 4 preferences. NOT to really consult the public of Newport what they wanted, their choice ! Just 4 short sighted preferences by a pen pusher in an office ! Again it was the council dictating to the people AGAIN. BUT after Cllr Miqdad of Stow Hill complained, the council were instructed to change the questionnaire to give the options, where the public could write their suggestions. I wouldn't want to question the council’s ability to communicate in English but, this is the definition of an option "The act of choosing; choice. See Synonyms at choice. 2. The power or freedom to choose" Obviously the consultation / questionnaire did not have options, so please why not and why the did the council think they could get away with what they did? Was it in the vain attempt to manipulate the people of Newport into thinking they had a choice? Wouldnt that be dangerous to give the people of Newport a voice ? According to the Argus article Cllr Miqdad Al-Nuaimi criticised the website questionnaire “I was very disappointed. I thought you would have an opportunity to say something. If we want to have feedback from people I think we need to do more than just ask them would they want to have a mural, a painting, a relief or a digital projection.” Shortly after he made his comments an additional option was added asking residents if they had an idea for an alternative artwork or location. The form should have been changed to incorporate a wider agenda which was not followed up by the council ..what a surprise ! There should have been two options given on the form. Option 1 and Option 2. indeed it says there are two but in practice it was not a choice In reality the public was forced to choose a preference from Option 1. Enforcing the user to engage in a preference is NOT a choice. It is NOT an option but an obligatory act. It is not what Miqdad meant ,it is not what was put out in the press and it was NOT explained on the form. Once again it is glaringly obvious the council did not properly consult the people. I would have thought that surely, by now, after the mural disaster, the council would have learnt its lesson. Obviously not! Indigo Pete

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree