Funny, I have scrolled past a lot of the later posts in this thread for exactly that reason: they say nothing new or original and have no reasoned arguments, only boring assertions that the poster is going to carry on with his irrational beliefs, whatever we say and however we challenge him.
I understand the idea of the lurkers, but even they must get bored.
That said, the Benny Hill theme idea did offer something of a distraction.
Anyway, the ponds.
@SinnerBoy made a very interesting post on page 12:
This makes interesting reading. If Kenwood Ponds has ignored email/s, or failed to justify properly their decision, then they will be in breach of legislation.
If those women had a genuine reason (as covered in the EA2010) as to why they can no longer use the ladies’ pond and have challenged it, then it looks like those running the pond should have given consideration to that challenge. They could, of course, claim they had done so, but they would be lying, I think. There would be no evidence of discussion, given that they threw away 19,000 responses that probably contained multiple such challenges.
I suspect this could be influenced by a legal case. It just needs someone appropriate to come forward. Someone is now challenging the rape crisis situation in Edinburgh and there will be similarly suitable candidates here, but as always, it takes someone both strong and who qualifies to carry that weight.