Extraordinary claims

Does Mr Gibson really believe that replacing an old swimming pool with a facility 1½ miles away will ‘deny thousands of ordinary people their right to health’? He quotes economic reasons for the retention of Temple Cowley Pool , claiming the pool should undergo refurbishment; meanwhile his fellow campaigner, Jane Alexander, states that her preferred option would be a new facility at Cowley Marsh (costing way in excess of the Blackbird Leys proposal). Mr Gibson states the refurbishment would cost £3m but doesn’t detail exactly what this would achieve or for how long it would extend the life of Temple Cowley. His group quote costs for the new pool of between £12m and £19m (make your mind up Mr Gibson), the official figure is £8.5m.

For all the group’s emphasis on democracy, Mr Gibson states: “However much support Mr Smith gets is irrelevant if there is no evidence behind it”. So we must, therefore, take ‘democracy’ and ‘evidence’ to mean the opinion of Mr Gibson. Finally, Mr Gibson states that: ‘City of Oxford Swimming Club is looking after its own interests’. COSC is run by volunteers who give many hours of their own time to support swimming for all. Does the same apply to Mr Gibson’s group?

Ian Smith, Marston