By: Wings43
- 24th March 2015 at 23:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mike J,
funny but what a shame you can't channel that effort into clarifying what you meant in your earlier comment. Exactly why did you single out teenage parents?
By: David Burke
- 25th March 2015 at 06:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wings - you seem to have an understanding problem with discrimination and opinion .
Stopping or in some way dissuading teenage parents from visiting is clearly not happening - it's opinion that these play facilities will be inhabited by social groups . So whether that's teenagers with kids- four wheel drive Chelsea tractor owners with
spoilt kids or any other group matters not a jot !
As to researching the subject of teenage pregnancy - I am more than happy to retain my views that
It clearly takes two and there is a degree of choice- I am sure you will tell me it's society however to blame!
By: Wings43
- 25th March 2015 at 07:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wings - you seem to have an understanding problem with discrimination and opinion .
Stopping or in some way dissuading teenage parents from visiting is clearly not happening - it's opinion that these play facilities will be inhabited by social groups . So whether that's teenagers with kids- four wheel drive Chelsea tractor owners with
spoilt kids or any other group matters not a jot !
As to researching the subject of teenage pregnancy - I am more than happy to retain my views that
It clearly takes two and there is a degree of choice- I am sure you will tell me it's society however to blame!
No society is not to blame and most people are responsible did their own actions and there is a large degree f choice but not in all cases. It's not black and white. Your comment that I would blame society is the stock accusation used by people who want to undermine others with less rigid and black and white views.
I'll explain my position one more time but I fear you may not listen but here goes..
Mike Js comment is, if as read (and he hasn't said otherwise so I think we can assume for now) indicating that it's a negative that parents may use new potential facilities as a play centre. That's the OPINION part and reasonable. One might not see a museum as being the place for a play area. I would but we are all welcome to our own opinion. All fine.
The part that I find DISCRIMINATORY is that teenage parents were singled out. Even if you don't agree with me surely that highlights what I find objectionable and that it is not his OPINION on the suitability of play centres for Hendon but the fact that he would choose to highlight teenage parents over any other sort of parent as being a negative thing for the museum. That is why I find it narrow minded. I was on a bus the other day and saw a very touching relationship between a teenage parent and their child. On the next bus there may well have been a teenage parent whose parenting skills were questionable. The point is is that conclusions shouldn't be made on one demographic based on stereotypes or a few people from that demographic that we come into contact with.
It is my opinion that Mike J should clarify that what he was getting at is his like or dislike of the provision at all of play areas or for him to say outright that he finds teenage parents more objectionable. A simple response would do but he has chosen not to only to have a couple of mild digs at me which hint I'm over the top.
Only you David have engaged in a discussion on the matter and I feel you would do your best to portray me in the same 'bleeding heart liberal' stereotype as is often used if someone goes against the grain on this forum. I don't fit that stereotype and have reasonable set out my objection. Don't judge me on what you THINK I may say, judge me on what I have said. Or ask me my opinion. I can only judge Mike Js opinions on his comments which he won't clarify.
Can't be fairer and clearer than that. I'm sad that so many people think that little asides like the one that I have brought up are ok. Each little broad brushstroke does a little damage each time and some broad sweeping stereotypes selp-perpetuate. I think this is sad.
By: CADman
- 25th March 2015 at 09:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Good idea Moggy. With that in mind may I be permitted to repost my earlier post.
"The museum’s plans include re-landscaping the site to create a sense of the original London Aerodrome"
What !!!!! Correct me if I am wrong but airfields tend to be flat, wide open spaces, without any major landscaping. Exactly what space is left within the confines of Hendon museum that can be landscaped ?
Money to be spent on new a new cafe, shop, visitors centre is a good idea, as it will ultimately repay for itself in sales. It will hopefully mean they will remove the small cafe / seating area from the main hangar.
If money allows hopefully the new building will be bigger enough to house conferences and small events, again this could prove a money spinner if marketed correctly. Book fairs, car auctions and the much missed Barnet model show have all taken place at Hendon before, but the current management appear not to want them. But if a suitable external building were available it might be different as a seperate admission charge could be applied for special events. The existing Hendon theatre / conference room is not suitable any more.
I remember when the new Museum Director was announced last year we all hoped that she would be a breath of fresh air, think there were many suggestions as to how we, as enthusiasts, could see the future improvements. It is often said that the powers that be do look at what is said on the Forum. sadly the last dozen posts above do not show us in the best light, bickering amougst ourselves.
New
Posts: 3,208
By: Mike J
- 25th March 2015 at 10:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Money to be spent on new a new cafe, shop, visitors centre is a good idea, as it will ultimately repay for itself in sales. It will hopefully mean they will remove the small cafe / seating area from the main hangar.
I understand that the new café is to be a conversion of one of the existing workshop buildings situated between the main car park and the Grahame-White Factory, and the new entrance/visitors centre is to be in what is currently the Battle of Britain Hall.
I rather like the small café area in the main halls and hope that it is retained. It provides a convenient place to stop off for a coffee whilst wandering amongst the exhibits, or to park the other half for a while.
By: charliehunt
- 25th March 2015 at 10:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
CADman - I too wonder what that means. The "look" of a museum and it's environs is important but far less important than the facilities it has to offer its visitors.
As enthusiasts we have to accept that the majority of visitors are not and it is for the majority it has to cater whilst upholding its original remit.
By: David Burke
- 25th March 2015 at 10:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cadman -I sort of get your ideas -however revenue generation is good if you have an aim on what to spend it on ! Over the years the site has evolved and often for the worse. Milestones didnt really work and its left the site a mish mash of buildings from the last forty years -many of which are starting to look dated .
A dramatic redevelopment is needed of the site as the limitations of the site mean that hugely significant aircraft such as Nimrod and Hercules will never be on site and the whole story won't be told.
By: CADman
- 25th March 2015 at 11:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hopefully that idea is dead and buried !!!! Shame so much time, effort and money was wasted on the idea.
Time is right for the "Milestones" building to be rebranded, indeed no branding is required it simply needs connecting properly to the main building and the original main entrance reusing. A good idea would be better information / direction to the other buildings, BoB hangar and Graham White hangar always have seemed remote. Could the space between Milestones and GW be used as some kind of external / covered display. Thinking a WW1 canvas hanger, WW2 revetment, a cold war HAS with appropriate ground equipment ?
Not sure how suitable the old workshop buildings would be for the new cafe ? If space can be found on the site a better solution would be a new build cafe with assocatied play area, ect. I do not know the local Hendon area so have no idea if this would work but if the cafe were run by at external contractor could it be open outside of museum opening times ? Could it become a destination / meeting point in its own right ? Maybe sounds a bit kitsch but there are many examples of such theme restaurants in the USA.
Posts: 3,208
By: Mike J - 24th March 2015 at 23:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Must type faster, he beat me to it! :D
Posts: 564
By: Wings43 - 24th March 2015 at 23:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mike J,
funny but what a shame you can't channel that effort into clarifying what you meant in your earlier comment. Exactly why did you single out teenage parents?
Posts: 163
By: tfctops - 24th March 2015 at 23:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They've got to take them somewhere I can't be bothered with the little blighters
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 25th March 2015 at 06:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wings - you seem to have an understanding problem with discrimination and opinion .
Stopping or in some way dissuading teenage parents from visiting is clearly not happening - it's opinion that these play facilities will be inhabited by social groups . So whether that's teenagers with kids- four wheel drive Chelsea tractor owners with
spoilt kids or any other group matters not a jot !
As to researching the subject of teenage pregnancy - I am more than happy to retain my views that
It clearly takes two and there is a degree of choice- I am sure you will tell me it's society however to blame!
Posts: 564
By: Wings43 - 25th March 2015 at 07:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No society is not to blame and most people are responsible did their own actions and there is a large degree f choice but not in all cases. It's not black and white. Your comment that I would blame society is the stock accusation used by people who want to undermine others with less rigid and black and white views.
I'll explain my position one more time but I fear you may not listen but here goes..
Mike Js comment is, if as read (and he hasn't said otherwise so I think we can assume for now) indicating that it's a negative that parents may use new potential facilities as a play centre. That's the OPINION part and reasonable. One might not see a museum as being the place for a play area. I would but we are all welcome to our own opinion. All fine.
The part that I find DISCRIMINATORY is that teenage parents were singled out. Even if you don't agree with me surely that highlights what I find objectionable and that it is not his OPINION on the suitability of play centres for Hendon but the fact that he would choose to highlight teenage parents over any other sort of parent as being a negative thing for the museum. That is why I find it narrow minded. I was on a bus the other day and saw a very touching relationship between a teenage parent and their child. On the next bus there may well have been a teenage parent whose parenting skills were questionable. The point is is that conclusions shouldn't be made on one demographic based on stereotypes or a few people from that demographic that we come into contact with.
It is my opinion that Mike J should clarify that what he was getting at is his like or dislike of the provision at all of play areas or for him to say outright that he finds teenage parents more objectionable. A simple response would do but he has chosen not to only to have a couple of mild digs at me which hint I'm over the top.
Only you David have engaged in a discussion on the matter and I feel you would do your best to portray me in the same 'bleeding heart liberal' stereotype as is often used if someone goes against the grain on this forum. I don't fit that stereotype and have reasonable set out my objection. Don't judge me on what you THINK I may say, judge me on what I have said. Or ask me my opinion. I can only judge Mike Js opinions on his comments which he won't clarify.
Can't be fairer and clearer than that. I'm sad that so many people think that little asides like the one that I have brought up are ok. Each little broad brushstroke does a little damage each time and some broad sweeping stereotypes selp-perpetuate. I think this is sad.
Posts: 16,832
By: Moggy C - 25th March 2015 at 08:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We are moving a long way from Historic Aviation.
Wings has by the luck of the draw ended with the last word on the 'soft play area'
Back on topic, please.
Moggy
Moderator
Posts: 674
By: CADman - 25th March 2015 at 09:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Good idea Moggy. With that in mind may I be permitted to repost my earlier post.
"The museum’s plans include re-landscaping the site to create a sense of the original London Aerodrome"
What !!!!! Correct me if I am wrong but airfields tend to be flat, wide open spaces, without any major landscaping. Exactly what space is left within the confines of Hendon museum that can be landscaped ?
Money to be spent on new a new cafe, shop, visitors centre is a good idea, as it will ultimately repay for itself in sales. It will hopefully mean they will remove the small cafe / seating area from the main hangar.
If money allows hopefully the new building will be bigger enough to house conferences and small events, again this could prove a money spinner if marketed correctly. Book fairs, car auctions and the much missed Barnet model show have all taken place at Hendon before, but the current management appear not to want them. But if a suitable external building were available it might be different as a seperate admission charge could be applied for special events. The existing Hendon theatre / conference room is not suitable any more.
I remember when the new Museum Director was announced last year we all hoped that she would be a breath of fresh air, think there were many suggestions as to how we, as enthusiasts, could see the future improvements. It is often said that the powers that be do look at what is said on the Forum. sadly the last dozen posts above do not show us in the best light, bickering amougst ourselves.
Posts: 3,208
By: Mike J - 25th March 2015 at 10:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I understand that the new café is to be a conversion of one of the existing workshop buildings situated between the main car park and the Grahame-White Factory, and the new entrance/visitors centre is to be in what is currently the Battle of Britain Hall.
I rather like the small café area in the main halls and hope that it is retained. It provides a convenient place to stop off for a coffee whilst wandering amongst the exhibits, or to park the other half for a while.
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 25th March 2015 at 10:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
CADman - I too wonder what that means. The "look" of a museum and it's environs is important but far less important than the facilities it has to offer its visitors.
As enthusiasts we have to accept that the majority of visitors are not and it is for the majority it has to cater whilst upholding its original remit.
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 25th March 2015 at 10:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cadman -I sort of get your ideas -however revenue generation is good if you have an aim on what to spend it on ! Over the years the site has evolved and often for the worse. Milestones didnt really work and its left the site a mish mash of buildings from the last forty years -many of which are starting to look dated .
A dramatic redevelopment is needed of the site as the limitations of the site mean that hugely significant aircraft such as Nimrod and Hercules will never be on site and the whole story won't be told.
Posts: 16,832
By: Moggy C - 25th March 2015 at 10:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They could build some sort of huge tower or beacon and display the BoB aircraft in it, as if dogfighting?
Moggy
Posts: 674
By: CADman - 25th March 2015 at 11:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hopefully that idea is dead and buried !!!! Shame so much time, effort and money was wasted on the idea.
Time is right for the "Milestones" building to be rebranded, indeed no branding is required it simply needs connecting properly to the main building and the original main entrance reusing. A good idea would be better information / direction to the other buildings, BoB hangar and Graham White hangar always have seemed remote. Could the space between Milestones and GW be used as some kind of external / covered display. Thinking a WW1 canvas hanger, WW2 revetment, a cold war HAS with appropriate ground equipment ?
Not sure how suitable the old workshop buildings would be for the new cafe ? If space can be found on the site a better solution would be a new build cafe with assocatied play area, ect. I do not know the local Hendon area so have no idea if this would work but if the cafe were run by at external contractor could it be open outside of museum opening times ? Could it become a destination / meeting point in its own right ? Maybe sounds a bit kitsch but there are many examples of such theme restaurants in the USA.