Talk:Royal Paddock Allotments

Removal of unsubstantiated opinion
Note that the following text which is unsubstantiated by external sources has been removed:


 * "Initially chartered in 1921 by King George V, they are used for gardening. Rent is quite low and there are 200 plots to be used.  An annual competition is held to award a silver cup for 'best gardener'. The Royal Paddocks Allotments are run by committee. That body is probably typical of it's kind. The normal purpose of an allotment committee is to allocate tenancies, collect rents and carry out day-to-day administration. Allotments are intended for "poor working men" - to grow vegetables for consumption by themselves, their family and friends, and keep them out of the pub. The purpose of the Royal Paddocks Allotments Plotholders' Committee seems to be to gentrify the allotment system. Allotments are supposed to be allocated on a fair, first-come-first-served basis, without preference, yet several committee members have two plots and one has four plots - three of them adjacent. An allotment tenant can be expected to keep his plot tidy, meaning that it should not spill over to adjacent plots. The Royal Paddocks Allotments Plotholders' Committee has extended this by operating a "scorched-earth" policy, whereby all ground should be rendered bare and any grass should be attacked using noisy, smelly, petrol-driven strimmers. This is against Government policy. The National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners has indicated that there are 30% more species on allotments than in public parks - this diversity afforded by variation in usage. Traditionally "poor working men" have exercised ingenuity in re-using materials on allotments. Old sash windows and floor boards have been made into seed beds, the boards held in place by driving wooden pegs into the ground. At The Royal Paddocks Allotments, this traditional improvisation seems to be deplored, and the use of modern materials is advocated, especially plastics. Some of this plastic is coloured green, perhaps to persuade us that it is environmentally friendly. This is not the case - plastics are made from oil, - a product in limited supply. It may be expected that plastic items will be flown in from the far-east or may arrive on container ships. Whatever the method, we are seeing increased and unnecessary use of the earth's finite resources and increasing pressure put on the environment, disturbing man's comfort. Plastic materials have a limited useability - they are destroyed by ultra-violet light in the very environment they were designed to be used in. They can then only be discarded - to be incinerated, causing pungent black smoke, accompanied by the release of cyanide. Natural materials are broken down by fungi and insects, the whole returning to the food-chain. Committees are, indeed, responsible for more than the invention of the camel.


 * A feature of the Royal Paddocks Allotments is the yuppie plotholder. Distinguished by their arrival in a four-wheel drive, they show off noisy, smelly, power implements when the greatest number of plotholders are present on site, then finish the job by starting a huge, smoky, fire - just when people are likely to have their windows open and their washing out. In previous decades, a common site on allotments was a thin plume of smoke rising straight up and continuing for some time. This was where the "poor working man" reduced allotment waste to potash, suitable for use on the soil. The slow combustion was essential to this process, but does not appeal to the new generation of plotholders."

Contributors who do not cite their sources should read No original research for the reason why I have made these changes --Gavin Collins 23:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

POV, not encyclopaedic and no citations
A whole section has been added by Kelvin Adams. Decisions or policies by the Plotholders' Committee are not referenced and the allegation of gentrification is POV. The policy for allotments in general, and evidence that this principle has been broken at RPA is unreferenced. Likewise, the "bare earth" policy needs a reference.

Is the use of modern materials instead of material reuse different to otyher allotment sites? If so, a reference is needed. If not, it is not relevant and should be added to the Allotments entry.

I suppose the yuppie comment is not a personal attack because it is not aimed at anyone specifically, but it's either not relevant to this allotment site in particular or it needs to be encyclopaedic and referenced.

The added comments are opinionated and the article is not encyclopaedic and nearly every statement is unverifiable. Because the whole article is now biased, I would like to propose that we revert all the changes back to 30th March unless there are any objections. I will declare an interest: I am a member of the Plotholders' Committee committed to working towards an unbiased article. I would be glad to discuss Kelvin Adams' concerns personally rather than discuss them through WP. He can E-mail me at john@igtec.net and we can arrange a meeting if he wishes it Troldman 12:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a member of the management committee of the Royal Paddocks allotments, which as I understand it bars me from editing the Royal Paddocks entry on Wikipedia. But I'd agree with the previous comment and add that the current entry is more a complaint than an encyclopaedia entry, is there someone neutral out there who is willing to repair it?

To answer the specific point about people holding multiple plots, current policy is that all vacant plots are reserved for new plotholders, and existing plot holders who want additional plots have to wait until such time as allotment demand falls. Demand for allotments has greatly increased in recent years due to concerns about GM and other food scares, and after many years of supply exceeding demand we now have a shortage of allotments across the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and beyond. Those plotholders who took on additional plots in the era when we couldn't rent out all our allotments played a big part in keeping the Royal Paddocks and other allotments viable as allotments, and I think it would be unfair and shortsighted to take their extra plots away now.

I would also be happy to discuss Mr Adams complaints elsewhere Jonathan Cardy 07:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Cllr.JCardy@richmond.gov.uk

I am pleased that some of the points raised by Mr Adams have already been questioned here. Opinion, a very broad enterpretation and a certain amount of malice have been used by Mr Adams. A relative new-comer to the Royal Paddocks Allotment I would indeed like to correct some of the points made: There are in fact 2 committees to run the allotments; one committee of elected plot holders and another management committee.No one committee member can imposed their personal likes or dislikes on the running of the allotments, they VOLUNTEER their time to uphold the rules and regulations. There is in place a constitution which governs the use of the plots. There is no "scorched earth" policy but clearly stated guide lines that paths between allotment must be kept clear (no rules about what to use to do this) and that 75% of any plot should be cultivated. All plotholders are warned of inspection and are given due time to bring there plots up to standard. The rules regarding structures such as sheds and "traditional improvisation" is perhaps different on this site than on council run sites as we are on royal land. Some plot holders, including some committee members, do indeed have more than one plot.The history of this is quite simple. At times when allotments were not fashionable and there was a chance of losing the land due to under-use, these plotholders took on extra plots, cleared and cultivated them. There is no unfairness here. If any of these plot holders did not maintain their plots to the required standard they would be faced with the same eviction notice as any other plotholder. As for the use of modern materials; it is not a question of advocation but of availability and cost. Whereas it would be nice in an ideal world to be able to afford to use netting and meshes made from natural fibres the average "poor working men" could simply not afford them even if they were available.


 * I don't see what all the fuss is about. Kelvin Adams' edits are clearly propaganda and thus forbidden by WP:SOAP. Thank you to Richard Collins for removing them. Also, Wikipedia is certainly NOT the place for discussing a person's personal grievances. The Angel of Islington 21:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)