PIER PAVILION ACTIVIST NICKI PAGE IS BANNED FOR ANOTHER YEAR

Local activist Nicki Page installed a protest banner across the Pier Pavilion entrance in March 2017 and was subsequently banned from entering the Pavilion. Now that ban has been extended

Nicki Page –  the prolific Penarth Pier Pavilion activist –  has been banned from entering Penarth Pier Pavilion for the whole of 2018.

Ms Page, who last year organised two “SOS”  public meetings to protest against the partial closure of the Pier Pavilion and the closure of its integral cinema – was initially banned from entering the Pier Pavilion last summer by the Pavilion leaseholders Penarth Arts and Crafts Ltd (a.k.a. PACL) .

She says this initial ban was due to end on December 31st 2017 – New Year’s Eve However Ms Page alleges there was a contretemps at the Pier Pavilion on January 4th 2018 in which she was allegedly prevented from  entering the Pavilion..

Professor Anthony Hazell, chairman of Penarth Arts and Crafts Ltd.

Now she has received a new banning letter – this one written on January 5th 2018 and  signed by the chairman of Penarth Arts and Crafts Professor Anthony Hazell

The new letter informs her that the ban on her entering the Pier Pavilion has been “extended” until the December 31st 2018.

Professor Hazell’s letter was sent to Ms Page on January 5th

In his letter, Professor Hazell declares that the sanction has been imposed on Ms Page “in order to maintain the safety and well-being of our staff and volunteers”  and says that “this decision has the support of the board of PACL” .

However as there is a gap of 5 days between the end of the initial ban, and the writing of Professor Hazell’s new banning letter on January 5th, there may be a grey area as to whether there was any ban actually in force on January 4th when the alleged incident took place.

South Wales Police have issued Ms Page with a Crime Number in respect of the alleged incident on January 4th

Ms Page meanwhile says she has taken up the matter with South Wales Police and has been issued with a Crime Number – 1800008710 – in the wake of the alleged incident on January 4th.

Ms Page had also been prohibited from entering all the premises of Penarth Town Council under the terms of a separate banning order issued by the Town Clerk of Penarth. The  Penarth Town Council ban is understood to have followed attempts by Ms Page to place notices for her public meetings on internal council notice-boards.

Ms Page is said to be planning another public meeting in Penarth at the end of this month.

 

About NewsNet

Penarth Daily News email address dmj@newsnet.uk . Penarth Daily News is an independent free on-line fair and balanced news service published by NewsNet Ltd covering the town of Penarth in the Vale of Glamorgan, Wales, UK. All our news items are based on the information we receive or discover at the time of publication and are published on the basis that they are accurate to the best of our knowledge and belief at that time. Comments posted on the site by commentators reflect their opinions and are not necessarily shared, endorsed or supported by Penarth Daily News.
This entry was posted in Penarth Daily News. Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to PIER PAVILION ACTIVIST NICKI PAGE IS BANNED FOR ANOTHER YEAR

  1. Chris David says:

    How can Hazell or the town council ban a member of the public from entering public premises without a court order? What crime has been committed let alone proven. This something that should concern us all- thin end of wedge.

    • snoggerdog says:

      makes you proud to be a penarthian ! put this criminal behind bars now.

    • The Town Cryer says:

      Agreed, other businesses should issue a blanket ban on Hazel entering their premises.
      He has made Penarth and its Cinema seem like a laughing stock.

  2. andrewsketty says:

    It’s ridiculous. Makes them a complete laughing stock. Are we living in a desirable vibrant seaside town or a feudal kingdom? You would think that Tony Hazell would be starting to think about the need to build bridges with the community rather than push us even further away.

    He and his colleagues would get more respect if they channelled their efforts into getting our cinema back up and running which is the biggest priority for most people when it comes to the future of the Pavilion. Says it all that we now enter 2018 with yet more of the same nonsense. When will someone in a position to effect change in this town get a grip once and for all?

  3. Birkett says:

    Lol

  4. Anne Greagsby says:

    What an arrogant man retired Prof Hazel is now reduced to a receptionist and bouncer at the Pier Pavilion! HAZEL and his cronies on the PACL board can obviously spot a threat from the indomitable Nicki Page! You’ve got my support Nicki. Granny power!!

  5. Gomer Davies says:

    Provided the reason is not discriminatory against a particular section of the community, which this is not, and if the person is putting others at risk, which appears to be so, they can.

    • Chris David says:

      Please demonstrate how? Under what powers? What legislation? You are telling us that an individual such as T Hazel or a council (puppet or not) can ban an individual from public premises without a court order? I need proof. Meanwhile the actions are prejudicial against a section of society (define section as I’m prejudiced against) and inform us how one N Page is putting others at risk ? That may be slander!

      • Gomer Davies says:

        Although a building may be performing a public function, the public have no automatic right of entry. If the operator of such a building considers that aggressive, abusive or insulting behaviour, or language, from a member of the public presents a risk to staff or others, or causes others to feel threatened, it has power in common law to bar that person from the premises. Your comments about prejudicial behaviour make little sense so I will not respond. I have no idea if, or how, Ms Page is, or may, be putting anyone at risk. I make no judgement or express any opinion about that. My comments are based solely on Mr Hazell’s assertion about the safety and well-being of staff and volunteers. I assume that you have no greater knowledge of the matter than I.

    • SW says:

      I guess the devil is all in the detail, which none of us sitting on the sidelines may be party to. I’m thinking it would depend on the style and intensity of the communication employed by the various parties involved – Did PACL staff and volunteers feel genuinely threatened and scared for their safety? Or is it a case of public servants being heavy handed and not wanting any challenge? Nicki Page has the right to peaceably protest, regardless of what others think of her reasoning. Not sure whether PACL would fall under the auspices of the Human Rights Act (I’m not convinced that they would be considered to be an ‘agent of the state’), but Penarth Town Council definitely would. I might be tempted to consult a human rights lawyer to check out my case….

  6. Andrew Worsley says:

    What was her crime and who reported it , the public should know .

  7. Only in Penarth says:

    I’m staggered this hadn’t made the Daily Mail yet.
    “Respectable middle-aged career woman ‘banned’ by professor on pier”
    At the very least, it’s inspiration for an episode of Midsomer Murders, surely

  8. Keith Stevens says:

    What right does Anthony Hazel have ? I’ll like to slap a ban on him for what damage he as caused to the people and community of Penarth – Also I would ban him from EVER stepping foot into the Pier Pavilion again ?

  9. The Town Cryer says:

    If anyone needs banning from the Pier Pavilion its (so called professor) Anthony Hazel, for he has done more damage to Penarth than misguided Nicki could ever do!
    Has the man no shame?

  10. Mr John Matthews says:

    Not wanting to question Mr Hazell’s intentions, but his signature, especially the A looks like someone of advancing years, to put it mildly.
    Is he able to ban a member of the public and a Penarth town council tax payer from the Pavilion? or is this just bluster on his part, a bit like some of his other misguided pronouncements on our beloved but closed Cinema.

    John M.

  11. Peter Church says:

    What a cheek.
    Go for it Nicki, lets have a march through the town and down to the Pavilion.
    They can’t ban the whole town from entering the pavilion? Can they 🙂

  12. Democratic rate payer says:

    Frankly when there are burglaries galore occurring all over the town The Police should be directing their resources there. Instead they are too busy wasting their time on this.
    South Wales Police should charge PACL for every call out. Then they may think twice about wasting Scarce Police resources! Someone needs to get a grip!

  13. In theory.. anyone could issue thier own ban on a person from any property they manage… to do so would fall under thier remit in so managing…
    Also … if Mrs Page has done something to warrent a ban … one would assume something must have gone on… that doesnt mean that whatever that was needs raising on a public forum..
    If they dont want her there … they are within thier rights to issue her with a ban.
    it doesnt mean anybody has to like it or agree with it.

    • Chris David says:

      OK fine DW- so show us the applicable laws. Theory is fine- the law is quite different. This is the thin end of the wedge. N Page whatever you think of her methods is a citizen and entitled to use public property she “owns” unless a legal power stops her. Show us the proof of your assertions. If what you say is right then that opens up blatant discrimination. For example could Hazel or the Council ban a person on grounds of race, gender, religion et al- or even being a middle age women who is exposing alleged misuse of power and public funds? Are you happy that several hundred thousand pounds of public money was granted to PACL allegedly with no proper due diligence- control or insistence of full and open disclosure? I don’t think you’ve demonstrated accuracy- prove me wrong please.

      • Gomer Davies says:

        You clearly did not understand my comment about discrimination against a particular section of the community. No, you cannot bar a person on grounds of race, gender religion et al, which would clearly be discriminating against a particular group of people. Neither can you bar elderly men with time on their hands, for the same reason. You can bar an individual for reasons already stated.

    • Chris David says:

      C’mon- you’ve had time- what theory? What laws? Prove your case Mr Williams.

      • Chris David says:

        Mr G Davies- empty vessels. You said a lot and yet nothing. As with Mr Williams (whom my last post was aimed at… but ego’s!!) you have not demonstrated under what legislation Prof (is he?) Hazel or the PTC are empowered to ban members of the public. You may be right, however I think you summed it up when you said “I have no idea”- so prove your case or shut up. I want to be educated. So I’m just asking- not pretending to know it all. I have to go- little time today with a meeting on mortgage mis-selling in the diary 🙂

      • Gomer Davies says:

        Oh dear this is becoming so tiresome. Do you not understand or do you choose not to? Like you, I have no idea what behaviour Nicki Page has displayed. You certainly do need to be educated but I have neither the time nor the inclination. Hope your meeting today goes well. If it keeps you away from here for a while it will be to the benefit of us all.😂

      • Chris David says:

        As I thought Mr G Davies, you have nothing, weighed measured and found wanting. Just another barrack room lawyer spouting off. Meeting went well thanks.

      • Gomer Davies says:

        Takes one to know one! Glad you were back in time to fire off a typically belligerent response.😡

      • Chris David says:

        🙂 Gomer x

    • Ben Dover says:

      You are right, you do not need to explain yourself. There are no laws that govern how persons or individuals manage premises (both public/private). If they wish to ban someone, they can for their own reasons and are well within their own rights to do so. Persons on here, do not need to know why. Just accept it, rather than question the reasons why an individual has been banned.

      • Chris David says:

        Don’t be such a sycophantic silly one. If you follow that through as it’s public property that we own we can ban the (probably not a Professor) Mr Hazel. While we’re at it there is no such thing a human rights- there are conferred rights and that’s subjective. You just made a completely hollow non statement 🙂

  14. Andrew Worsley says:

    I am aware of other injustices perpetrated by gossips and gone along with by the Police in Penarth , who had been informed of an incident , this ‘incident’ never took place and yet a suspect was named . And from then on things went from bad to worse , (well for the innocent supposed wrongdoer!) The Police sent a PSCO to handle the matter , this PSCO had spent weeks gathering information from gossips , and shockingly he took the side of the accusers , he asked for no witnesses , he asked for no proof, he never asked for CCTV footage which would have been available , he had already convinced himself it was an open and shut case and he had all the answers. The PSCO was totally biased and sloppy not to mention amateurish , he took one side of the affair and never once questioned his findings. This PSCO in fact ‘criminalised’ the person ‘picked on ‘ totally on mere hearsay, gossip, fantasy and downright lies . And yet this PSCO had convinced himself ( God alone knows how?) that he had done a ‘good job’ , talk about deluded and poorly trained. In fact he used to chat with malicious gossips and exchange juicy bits of gossip apparently . And the matter has not been put right to this day , due to lack of interest or any kind of cooperation from the local Police. So don’t run away with the idea that Penarth Police do a good job, they don’t… FACT.

    • Local blogger says:

      Here here Mr Worsley
      Couldn’t say it better myself.
      I expect they will accuse her of ‘ harassment ‘.
      This is the criminal label given to anyone who does something someone else doesn’t like.
      They will pursue her , even if there is no evidence.
      It’s what happens on a daily basis .

    • Ben Dover says:

      You have a massive chip on your shoulder. Talking nonsense as per usual.

    • Mollie Danielle says:

      Andrew Worsley – this article is nothing to do with the police other than the matter was reported by Ms Page and is being dealt with. What on earth does it have to do with everything you have written above? Where does the article mention a PCSO for example?!

      It seems that its just ANOTHER loosely linked attack on the local Constabulary by yourself. While I fully appreciate freedom of speech, do we really need to be subjected to another comment on your concerns over the ability of Penarth Police?

  15. Mike Wallis says:

    I can’t believe that he signs letters nothing to do with the subject he gained the professorship in as “Professor” what a pompous man he is!
    He should take a long hard look at his own actions over the last year and since he is controlling public monies he should be accountable for his actions and lack of response to questions
    Mike Wallis (200m Backstroke champion 1983)

    • Wild West says:

      Spot on Mike.
      I believe this whole farce could only be allowed to continue in the wannabe town of Penarth.

    • Frank Evans says:

      He reminds me of the dad’s army captain.

      Except things haven’t worked out for him as they do in the sitcom . Time to join the bowls club and leave PACL to someone who cares and can organise things properly.

    • Chris David says:

      IS he a professor? My understanding is that to be a professor you have to hold a chair unless made an emeritus- I cannot fond a T Hazel chair! So is he misleading us? Genuine or a ticket collector on a gravy train? Tell us Mr Hazel.

    • Chris David says:

      If he hasn’t got a chair he’s not a professor- unless he’s an emeritus- I think it’s all bogus.

  16. Susan Talbot says:

    May I make an apology on behalf of PDN contributors? We’re truly sorry if we may previously have given the impression that Nicki Page is an eccentric object of derision who is incapable of organising a party in a brewery. We now realise that she is a true leader and champion of the people, selflessly and relentlessly fronting the campaign to free Penarth from tyranny.

    • Wild West says:

      I think perhaps what PDN contributors do realise is when they see spite and (unwarranted) self regard, incompetence, mediocrity and stubbornness.

  17. Chris David says:

    Oh- do PDN sanction your apology on their behalf? Is that official? You have completely missed the point and if you’re ever discriminated against don’t bleat will you.

  18. Lesley Monger says:

    If you read this had happened in Russia you could believe it but not Penarth!
    Again poor Penarth what are they doing to you?
    It’s a disgrace

  19. Andrew Worsley says:

    I’m glad you agree with me Local Blogger and I should just mention that the PSCO in question must have learnt his duties and responsibilities from the I7th century handbook on crime . He was probably aware that proof , evidence or witnesses are over rated issues . The PSCO will have read that carrying a hot metal rod 20 feet wrapping up the hand and if after 24 hours if the hand has not healed its ALL THE PROOF YOU NEED OF GUILT. Likewise if the culprit is thrown in the river and survives its a sure sign of guilt if he or she drowns , the poor soul was innocent. This was the logic or basis of this PSCOs training . So tradition is alive and well in Penarth including Witch Hunting and it fits in well with all the other petty officialdom , and with Polices inability to LISTEN AND ABSORB and not pre judge or form ideas that belong 400 years ago.

  20. John powelll says:

    Surely, surely, Tony Hazel and Nicki Page need to sit down and talk their differences out. Both care for the Pier, but banning each other or involving the police is puerile and actually quite wasteful.

  21. Why can’t we get down to what Penarth should have?
    A Pier that all generations can enjoy?
    Cafe is open but what about the rest of this wonderful,equipped building?
    Constant “he said / she said “ is going nowhere.
    How to move forward——————

    • Chris David says:

      I’m not sure “we” can, Hazel has it tied up and the VoG didn’t handcuff him- or so it appears. The only hope I can see is if PACL becomes insolvent. But given it’s allowed to show the Pier Pavilion lease as an asset (it’s really a liability) then the balance sheet is very strong. However if cash flow goes negative…….! Then a restructure plan could be put in place through a new NFP company if Hazel / PACL has to give it all up. Of course they could get bailed out again but hopefully those concerned will engage in proper due diligence so a re-launch through PACL might be unlikely. But I’m sure some here know better than me.

  22. Chris David says:

    I’m not at all sure Hazel cares for the pier!

  23. Nincompoop says:

    What did Nicki Paige do that warrants such a ludicrous ban. I’m genuinely intrigued. Who does “ Professor” Hazels think he is.

  24. Andrew Worsley says:

    Don’t you just hate people who try to shut down another contributor because he or she is not sticking rigidly to the topic at hand , this is a public forum , no has the right to try and shut down anothers contribution just because they think it breaches some unwritten rule.

Comments are closed.