In Reply to: Re: Fair enough but posted by Manny on December 22, 2005 at 13:30:06:

Mmmm! - you say: "It could have been a breeding ground for all sorts of germs and bugs"

That's a bit rich is it not when you are talking about the hospital that recently scored so very low in an independent survey on basic hygiene stuff like WASHING HANDS in order to keep MRSA at bay. they spend hundreds of thousands to keep bugs down in a neighbouring building located over 100 metres away and they still haven't got their staff to wash their hands? Hee! Hee! That is funny! Of course there are no published medical or scientific papers citing old churches as a source of multiple antibiotic resistant bacteria in the standard medical literature - zilch - none. So why prioritise the shutting of a church located 100 yards away from the nearest patient? Especially when it's roughly the same distance away as the nearest puker emanating from QT night-club from across the road at 3am? Surely a much greater source of bacteria and infection if you can't look inside your own four walls first why not pick an obvious target?

You also say: ", and its [sic]used on Sundays and empty all week, but is prone to vandalism and a place for youths to drink and sexual activities with know [sic] one to watch over it"

I am interested to know what is the precise role of the WHB in guarding the sexual mores of our teenagers and early twenties students attending GMIT? Are they really that enthusiastic that they engage in hugely expensive litigation using massive amounts of taxpayers money to stop youngsters drinking and making love to each other?Are they taking cases for the closure of every old building in the West in order to stop us having sex? You know not everyone can afford a mortgage and a house where we have the privacy to engage in intimacy. The church door could be a perfect refuge while we are waiting to accumulate enough dosh to pay a down-payment on a house. You were obviously referring to the students of GMIT as the youths who are drinking and engaging with the opposite sex in a perfectly natural manner? This is reminiscent of the Priest with the bell in Cinema Paradiso.

Also in spite of what you state above it's a pretty well documented fact that WHB DID defend a court action against the local church while trying to evict them from St. Mary's. The fact that they lost a ton of money as well as the action says more about their profligate waste of public resources - on a massive scale - than any campaign to improve their hygiene standards or sexual mores of students.

And a happy winter festival to you too bub.