“In reply to Mrs Margaret Sadler, I would like to say that i did attend a few meetings and try to work along with the memorial garden committee because of my role as Chair in the Tunstall Community Residents Association that involves the memorial garden. I also in my newsletters provided updates about the memorial garden. Since being Chair of Tunstall Community Residents Association i have never had any sort of approach from the memorial committee to invite me to any of their meetings. Our concerns are for the better of the memorial garden not against it. As the Chair, it's my responsibility to take people concerns forward and that's what I¿m doing. We as a community think by putting the plaques on the Boulevard side of the gardens will obstruct the view of the gardens. Previously, a few months ago there was a wreath stolen from the Cenotaph so the obstruction will make it easy for vandalism and theft. Also access of the entrance by the Boulevard is used frequently which could encourage people to damage the plaques. The council agreed with the association that they will knock the pavilion down because it¿s a magnet for anti-social behaviour and people are using it for drug related purposes and that is no good for our memorial garden. Due to funding they said it will be done in the New Year budget and we as the residents association are asking that the New Year budget is around the corner so why can¿t we knock the pavilion down and put the plaques there. That is the best place for the plaques because it¿s the focal point of the garden and it won¿t be obstructing anything and it will be easily seen from the three points; Boulevard, Greengate and Park Terrace which will display the character of the memorial garden in a better way. It¿s a quiet area where as the Boulevard side is noisy because of traffic flow. These are the concerns we have and really want it to be for the benefit of the gardens but because of funding do we just don¿t bother where the plaques should go.

Kind Regards

Mr Alam”

“As Secretary of the Friends of The Tunstall War Memorial. I was most disturbed to read this article and the objections made by the Residents Association. Firstly I ask, Why none of these people have attended our Open Public Meetings? I know Mr Alam did come to one of our meetings and I'm sure he could have contacted one of our Committee members to ask what the situation was.
At our last Committee meeting on 18th March, we were all devastated at the news of the Memorial having to be moved to another location again, but the City Council and Architect gave us no alternative but to agree to this new site. In short, the Pavillion site was to expensive, the Greengate site was opposed by conservationists. May I also add that the 6 to 2 ratio of Committee members voting for the new site was altered later in the evening once the plans were seen. We were all unanimous that there should be no more delay and the Memorial should be started as soon as possible. The new site at the front of the Memorial Gardens would be well lit from the street lighting and the new buildings on The Boulevard and is also covered by CCTV cameras. But the bottom line is that anyone with an ounce of RESPECT for all of those that died for us. would not deface, damage or vandalise the new Memorial in any way! We would not be a free, democratic society if the men and women had delayed and said, oh I'm not fighting today, it's raining or oh it's too muddy in those trenches, I think I'll give it a miss. This may seem petty, but that is how we all feel the delays to the Memorial is. We have all worked very hard to get this far and all the work has been purely voluntary. This being the case particularly for the Researcher, Mr Ray Cope who has worked relentless for 15 years (approx) to verify names, spelling, ranks and where the victims died, which was extremely difficult for WWI dead because of the "Burnt Records".
Maybe we could all agree to work together and just work with the City Council to GET THE JOB DONE........
Margaret Sadler.”