Thank you for your message. You have miscontrued my message, which I though required clarification. Of course, there is a need for a lease.

My concern is that if Firoka is already operating and earning from business dealings at Alexandra Palace, what is the primary purpose of another consultation? Maybe you can help answer that.

The Liberal Democrats are not opposes to Firoka taking over, they are concerned with the lack of public consultation. I as a resident am too.

Your comments suggest that since Firoka bosses occupy the Palace, there’s no need for a Lease. One doesn’t have to be a lawyer to work out that this is not lawful and unsustainable, to put it mildly. Perhaps you are unaware that the Council is desperate to the Lease past the Charity Commission and another so-called Consultation. This is the law because, AP is a charity.

The present situation is hard to understand and its arisen from extreme gross incompetence. There is nothing inconsistent in Lyne Featherstone’s comments but as she says, its a complicated story and difficult to summarise briefly for the benefit of someone unfamiliar with the scandal.

The Council has been misleading on almost every aspect of its regretable stewardship of Alexandra Palace, no more so than over its accounts. Haringey are incompetent managers and yet the operational side has been modestly profitable over the last ten years. This is contrary to the impression given by the Council.

A ten-year analyis by an independent accountant of the published AP accounts may be seen at:

http://saveallypally.com/accounts.html

This same website contains a great deal of background information to the current situation, useful for anyone who wishes to familiarize themselves with the People’s Palace.

SOS: Save our Studios! Be proud of having the World’s First TV Studios! First TV Broadcast! First TV mast!

saveallypally.com

Let’s make it the biggest tourist attraction in North London!

World’sFirstTVStudios

“It’s a bit like thinking you had sold your house, and then giving the potential future owners the keys before the deal was signed.”

Are you suggesting that the keys have already been given to Firoka Group in order to begin profiting from business dealings at Alexandra Palace? This puts the consultation process in jeopardy and public representation will be pointless at this stage. Do you not accept this assessment of this situation.

“However, the deal on the lease was thrown out by the High Court – as the Charity Commission was found to have failed to consult the public properly on their plans for the Palace. The whole process now has to be done again. This could take months, if it happens at all.”

If the lease was refused by the High Court on the grounds that the Charity Commission were found to have, as you put it, failed to consult the public properly on their plans for the palace. And then you argue that this process will have to be done again, and as you suggest, will take months. Firstly, what is the point of this new consultation, if the keys have already been handed over to Firoka group?

“In the meantime, as the Trust had no ‘plan B’ to cope with this cock-up, Firoka is now running the trading business at the Pally – and pretty much pocketing the profits coming in, from events and exhibitions, and so on.”

Now your piece suggests that Firoka is benefiting from events and exhibitions held at Alexandra Palace, despite the High Court ruling and lack of public consultation. Perhaps you can clarify this part of your article.

What exactly would be the purpose of a public consultation at this late stage when Firoka has clearly taken full responsibility for Alexandra Palace?

Thank you

Mash