1922
History > Before 1923 > 1922
1922
1922
Consett Park and Parental Control
Consett Park and Parental Control
On 4th August 1922, the Consett Guardian published a letter relating to the Park.
CONSETT PARK ANDPARENTAL CONTROL.To the Editor.Sir, - I noticed in your last week's issue a reference to serious damage in Consett Park - wanton destruction caused by youngsters who seem to be entirely devoid of moral stance, which I take to be a serious reflection upon our educational system and the moral control exercised by the average parent. Parental restraint does not seem to be of the same quality today as it used to be. How often have we cases in court when parents confess that they have no control over their children. What a terrible confession to make! I remember the time when the site of the Consett park was a wilderness until the Consett Iron Co. took the matter in hand, at great expense running into many thousands of pounds, turned the barren face into a thing of beauty where old and young might resort to for the healthy enjoyment of the beauties of nature. On the opening out of the park for the use of the public David Dale and Mr. Wm. Jenkins declared that after a term of years the company would be willing to hand the park to the two local Councils, Consett and Benfieldside, on payment of a lump sum to be agreed upon; but neither of the Councils were prepared to come to terms, so that the park still remains a private property of the Company. Whether the public spirit of the district will ever develop to the point of endeavouring to acquire the Park as a public property seems to be very doubtful; thus the Company can close the park at any time in spite of public protest. Under these conditions if we wish the use of the Park as a public resort we ought to assist and protect against the wanton destruction that has been too common, and demand that the punishment for such dastardly conduct should be of a severe character. The imposition of a fine is no remedy. Nothing short of a severe flogging with the birch-rod can have any redeeming effect. I contend that the old Biblical injunction.. “Spare the rod and spoil the child,” still holds good. Thanking you in anticipation, -- Yours etc. JANITORConsett, August 1st, 1922
The Consett Guardian from the previous week, dated July 28th, had reported the following:
WANTON DESTRUCTION TO PARK.Other three boys were charged with doing wilful damage to trees at Consett, the property of the Consett Iron Co., to the extent of 10/- each. Mr. J.M. Aynsley described the offence as vindictive damage to trees and shrubs in Consett Park. The defendants had crossed the footpath across the lawn, where there were hawthorn and lilac trees all in bloom. The defendants had climbed the trees and tore off the branches. On several occasions this summer wilful damage had been done, and unless the damage was stopped the Company would have to consider the closing of the park. The company could not go on repairing damage for ever.Mr. Oliver, the architect of the company, said in consequence of the complaint he visited the place and estimated the damage at 30/-. The total damage was not under £6. Mr. George had informed him that, unless the wanton destruction ceased they would have to close the park.Mr Costello (the chairman) said the Bench took a serious view of the case, and he thought the parents of those children ought to exercise more control over then. It was deplorable that a beautiful park should be kept for the use of the public and be destroyed in this wanton fashion. If they had any more cases they would be more seriously dealt with. If the parents did not do something the bench would introduced the birch.Defendants were fined 10/- each and ordered to pay the damage.
The report went on to describe some other offences. These are unrelated to the Park, but may be of interest:
TRESPASS.Robert Elliott (17) and Robert Jobes (19) were fined 5/- each and 3d damage for trespassing over a meadow at Pontop Pike.
DAMAGE TO GRASS.Joseph Suddick (25) and Thomas Lister (43) were charged with doing wilful damage to grass. P.C. Burgess stating that he saw Suddick cutting the grass with a scythe at the Grove Farm, the property of the Consett Urban District Council.Suddick was fine 10/- and 1/3 damages, and Lister, who did not appear, was fined 15/- for similar damages.HIGHWAY ACTMatthew Baker (18), Thomas Foy (20), Harvey Pollard (18), and Henry Steele (18) were fined 5/- each for playing football on the highway at Tantobie.Leslie Baker (17), Henry Hardy (18) , William Humble (18), Alex. Campbell (18), and Robert Wilkinson (18) were charged with obstructing the footpath at Burnopfield.Hardy, who was the only one that appeared, was fined 5/-, and the others 7/6.MISCELLANEOUSPatrick Grimes (32), Dipton, pleaded not guilty to a charge of having no licence for his dog, and was fined 7/6.James Kay (26) for riding a cycle on the footpath near Mountsett, was fined 5/-; Robert Locker (36), Dunston, for riding a bicycle on the footpath at Hare Law, was fined 5/-.
DAMAGE TO GRASS.Joseph Suddick (25) and Thomas Lister (43) were charged with doing wilful damage to grass. P.C. Burgess stating that he saw Suddick cutting the grass with a scythe at the Grove Farm, the property of the Consett Urban District Council.Suddick was fine 10/- and 1/3 damages, and Lister, who did not appear, was fined 15/- for similar damages.HIGHWAY ACTMatthew Baker (18), Thomas Foy (20), Harvey Pollard (18), and Henry Steele (18) were fined 5/- each for playing football on the highway at Tantobie.Leslie Baker (17), Henry Hardy (18) , William Humble (18), Alex. Campbell (18), and Robert Wilkinson (18) were charged with obstructing the footpath at Burnopfield.Hardy, who was the only one that appeared, was fined 5/-, and the others 7/6.MISCELLANEOUSPatrick Grimes (32), Dipton, pleaded not guilty to a charge of having no licence for his dog, and was fined 7/6.James Kay (26) for riding a cycle on the footpath near Mountsett, was fined 5/-; Robert Locker (36), Dunston, for riding a bicycle on the footpath at Hare Law, was fined 5/-.
