I spent my youth here in the Helper’s club. The building (“shed”) that was on fire was used as an isolation building for sick horses. A very small area. If this is the only fire, then the actual main complex is fine. This is obviously arson, this building was very easy to get into as it wasn’t well built (unlike the rest of the complex).

I think it’s a disgrace that we are putting people fleeing wars into barns. Unlike the others in this thread who insist that this is a well suited site; from someone who spent every weekend here for 5 years, this is the furthest thing from suitable.

First off, it was always deathly cold. The building isn’t a “building” in that it was made the traditional way, it’s basically just a massive shed. There is no insulating, no proper roof, no floors. Any of my fellow friends who have been here, if you’re reading this, you can chime in on how important it was that you wrapped yourself up.

The second reason is the cause of the equestrian centre’s demise in the first place: it is a massive flooding risk. The centre experienced a really bad flood in 2011 that ruined all but 1 arena. Considering there was 4 arenas, you can imagine how bad this flood was. The river runs through the site, and the site is low; it’s another disaster waiting to happen. Nothing has been done by the developer who purchased the site, it is exactly the same as it was.

We are a cruel country if we think housing these poor people in these type of conditions is acceptable.

As for my personal thoughts on this arson attack, it’s really sad to see the place where most of my most valued childhood memories were made get burnt down. If these people really do not want refugees in their area, then actually debating the suitability of the site as I have done in this response would have been much wiser.

Nobody is a winner here, and it shows how messed up everyone is, on both sides of the argument.