January 24, 2021, 02:32:45 AM

Author Topic: [News]Bramley Moore Dock update  (Read 680370 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

July 03, 2019, 10:34:30 PM
Read 680370 times



Quite a few are on my list, to be fair.

Just been down a rabbit hole after clicking that link there!
I clicked on that link assuming that it might provide some data on how many people are booking holidays, or visiting UNESCO sites, on the merit of their holiday destination being a UNESCO site. Can't say i found what I was after.

I then clicked the 'about us' link, which reads what UNESCO hope to achieve. Amongst other objectives, this includes:

'Heritage Convention and to ensure the protection of their natural and cultural heritage;

Encourage States Parties to establish management plans and set up reporting systems on the state of conservation of their World Heritage sites;

Help States Parties safeguard World Heritage properties by providing technical assistance and professional training;

Provide emergency assistance for World Heritage sites in immediate danger;

Support States Parties' public awareness-building activities for World Heritage conservation;

Encourage participation of the local population in the preservation of their cultural and natural heritage;"

As I understand that, UNESCO don't provide much themselves: there's no funding provided, I don't think, and couldn't find any info on Google about it. So UNESCO serve to, mostly, provide the world heritage status itself, act as an overseer to who does and doesn't get said status, and then try to encourage states to preserve and maintain the site in question, so that the status is maintained. And if it's not maintained, they will provide 'emergency assistance'. Although it's not stipulated as to whether this assistance is financial in nature or not.

As I understand it, then, Liverpool got its status not too long ago, but presumably it would've come with some guidance and parameters from UNESCO..."make sure the local government maintains and upkeeps the sites", etc....which hasn't really happened. Peel have done their own thing, mostly, and why wouldn't they as a business first and foremost. Presumably, this endangered the status further.

The council, peel, whoever, it would seem, have done nothing to 'maintain or preserve' Bramley Moore specifically. If anything, Everton should be applauded for their own preservation efforts, but in the grand scheme of things, I'm assuming these things from all this reading:

- Liverpool's UNESCO status was at risk  before Everton made Bramley Moore enquiries

- Peel's own business developments and Peel's / the council's lack of 'maintaining' or 'preserving' dock sites like Bramley Moore will have impacted on this downgrading further

- Peel's expansions, I assume, will have had a significantly more positive financial impact on Liverpool's trade and employment levels than UNESCO's seal of approval.

So even though I could be wrong (and I could be, to be fair, need to read more on it) but it's safe to assume that Everton - a business, like Peel, but with arguably a more positive track record on community development and treatment of local points of historical interest (see: treatment of Bill Shankly post retirement, arf arf arf) would be a lot more positive to the city...and to the actual maintenance and preservation of Bramley Moore itself...than holding onto what seems like a status that was already a bit thin on the ground as it was.

Went on a bit there sorry, baby's asleep isn't he. Feel free to shoot me down here, pro-unesco dudes, need to read more on it later I think.

Tldr: Big Joe's not always wrong

July 07, 2019, 05:03:08 PM
Reply #1



Not sure if already been posted, but worth a read, this. Interested in this bit:

'Only one location has lost its World Heritage status since 1972, when the concept was established: the German city of Dresden. That decision was made after the construction of a controversial £156m bridge across the Elbe in 2013.

Itís very hard to judge the impact it had on tourism, given the myriad factors involved, but Dresden did report a five per cent fall in domestic tourism in 2015. Evidence suggested overseas visits, however, remained stable.'

Even if that 5% drop in domestic tourism in 2015 was directly caused by the status loss, a quick Google search suggests that Dresden's been doing very well since then:


I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but even if you can provide a quick example to the 'uhhhh what about tourism' trolls, it's worth a go trying to beat them with logic. Some of it might even stick.

July 07, 2019, 07:10:32 PM
Reply #2


......................is it really necessary to describe anyone who mentions tourism as a 'troll ' ?

I don't think anyone has said Liverpool would lose out if the WHO listing was removed and we all know by now that UNESCO aren't the planning authority ,they can only comment on planning applications. 
Reading between the lines it seems as if LCC are quite prepared to risk losing the status.

No Alan, not at all. I was referring to a few of the examples over the previous months that appear on social and local media where people are, on the surface, defending the world heritage site, but in reality it's safe to argue they're Liverpool fans with an agenda. (See: trolls).

If there is a legitimate counter argument for benefits of the docks having heritage status, then, as I alluded to in my previous massively overblown post, I'm genuinely interested in learning about them. Personally I'm interested in hearing as much as I can about this and gathering an opinion that's not just good for Everton, but for the city as a whole.

But twitter rants and Roger Phillips phone ins seem to have produced some trolls this year, yeah.

July 23, 2019, 06:51:23 PM
Reply #3


I have, can smell it from Sandhills.

The smell will change though, it will no longer be the smell of sewage from the United Utilities water plant just up the road, it will be masked by the smell of success

I used to teach in Bootle...when I'd get off the train there was a mad smell sometimes, heard different stories about what it was:

- dog food factory
- whale bone processing (you know, because of all those Japanese whalers that work the Mersey)
- cereal processing for beer (I assume they meant Cain's, even though it's been dead a while now)

Not once did I hear the very sensible reason of a water plant!

I was kind of hoping when people were talking about a smell that they weren't talking about this, but oh well. For what it's worth, the smell wasn't permanent or anything....some mornings it was in the air, others not. Maybe it only occurs when the plant is undertaking a certain process? And maybe they can avoid doing it on a Friday night / Saturday or Sunday?

What do I know anyway, I was told it was fucking whale bones!

July 25, 2019, 02:20:51 AM
Reply #4


I always though it was bibbys or libbys oil processing plant. Thats what i was told anyway. Probably an amalgamation of things
Sent from my POT-LX1 using NSNO Everton Forums mobile app

Ohhh right so that's a different thing to the smell people are talking about by Bramley Moore then!
Drove down the dock road / past Bramley Moore on days when I'd take the car to work...can't say I noticed any other smells but it's barely a snapshot I've got there really is it.

I could be wrong, but I reckon if the stench was that bad at Bramley Moore, surely the Titanic would've suffered / that's the type of stuff people give bad reviews on trip advisor over?

(I've just had a quick look before I posted...there's one or two reviews so far that talk about smells in the rooms themselves, or a 'sewage smell because it's an old building', but can't see any major stuff about the plant's smells ruining people's stays or whatever yet)

July 25, 2019, 07:13:44 PM
Reply #5


Expecting the usual twitter images to fly around regardless

Sent from my CLT-L09 using NSNO Everton Forums mobile appu

Sure I read somewhere last week that  the media team were planning to release the images online at the same time / shortly after the presentation yknow

July 27, 2019, 06:43:48 PM
Reply #6


That Indeoendant article has to be written by a red


Just read it after you said that. It's certainly quite cynical sounding isn't it? I scanned it to find out what it mentioned about the rather excellent plans for Goodison but it only seems to get a brief mention towards the end of one paragraph...probably because it's inconvenient to the writer's agenda and getting the article published.
It then tries to rescue impartiality at the end with this 'i suppose we'll never know the answer' tone.
I know I'm biased reading that so I'm going to argue the Everton positives but yeah, was weird reading that.
Verdict: shithead possibly with an agenda trying to sound smarter than he is. A bit like me!

July 27, 2019, 07:09:35 PM
Reply #7


.......................to be fair i didn't think it was too bad , having a go at football in general rather than Everton alone. The writer calls the plans for Goodison 'genuinely impressive '.

Not sure what to make of it to be honest mate. Confusing me really! Making me wonder whether it's just me being overly sensitive / defensive about Everton, which I probably am