View from the Dolman Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Probably because I pointed out it could be digitally signed and traceable to the original owner of it. Bit late now pulling it. And the redaction was just covering the text in a black block - so rightclicking on it gave hidden text! Fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stroudy Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 It says on there now that the file has been deleted. I suspect they realise it could be deemed as slandirous [sp?] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 So the Bristol blogger has put the applicants name in the public domaine. Glad I downloaded the file now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abraham Romanovich Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 So the Bristol blogger has put the applicants name in the public domaine. Glad I downloaded the file now. Don't be a tease post it on here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 That wouldn't be the "right" thing to do, tempting as it is to make life akward for these land grabbing parasites. *****s like the Bristol Blogger need to stop ******* with peoples lifes behind the safety of a PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff65 Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Any chance someone can give us an idea of what it say's? On my phone, can't download PDFs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff65 Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Any chance someone can give us an idea of what it say's? On my phone, can't download PDFs It's the TVG people putting reasons as to why new evidence should not be allowed to be considered by the committee, if it is allowed then it should all be sent back to the original inspector, if it does go back to the inspector, then the applicants will require a long time to prepare for them to prepare for the new evidential hearing by the inspector, the evidence reproduces evidence already heard by the inspector and it should be ignored, the evidence is then discredited and says that a lot of it is untrue. 32 pages of legal argument, presented in a biased way - which is to be expected. It's up to the committee on Thursday and regardless of the outcome, the decision will be derided by the losing party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bringbacktherobin Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 It's the TVG people putting reasons as to why new evidence should not be allowed to be considered by the committee, if it is allowed then it should all be sent back to the original inspector, if it does go back to the inspector, then the applicants will require a long time to prepare for them to prepare for the new evidential hearing by the inspector, the evidence reproduces evidence already heard by the inspector and it should be ignored, the evidence is then discredited and says that a lot of it is untrue. 32 pages of legal argument, presented in a biased way - which is to be expected. It's up to the committee on Thursday and regardless of the outcome, the decision will be derided by the losing party. What a load of drivial, read the first few pages and got thoroughly bored. Have to say, they seem to know what they are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbert Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 Fascinating document. As one might expect it is all just posturing for the event that the councils decision doesn't go their way. The interesting thing is that the groundwork they have put in there is more about the whole application being turned down and the residents being deprived unfairly of their village green. So if the council does go with the split decision then the applicatants are going to have to try to show that the council have unfairly only given them a 22 acre village green rather than the full 42 acres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
del ete Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 with the average VG granted being 0.75 acres surely you think they would be happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 It's the TVG people putting reasons as to why new evidence should not be allowed to be considered by the committee, if it is allowed then it should all be sent back to the original inspector, if it does go back to the inspector, then the applicants will require a long time to prepare for them to prepare for the new evidential hearing by the inspector, the evidence reproduces evidence already heard by the inspector and it should be ignored, the evidence is then discredited and says that a lot of it is untrue. 32 pages of legal argument, presented in a biased way - which is to be expected. It's up to the committee on Thursday and regardless of the outcome, the decision will be derided by the losing party. The whole reason that and Still Waters will fail is that there saying the Inspectors report is legally binding, Its not and anyone who read the independant inspectors report will know this as it states at the top of the independant inspectors report that its a recomendation and no way legally binding, I could recomend you jump off the bridge but it doesn't mean you have to do it legaily, The council get the final say then its up to ether side to appeal I think if the TVGers appeal they will end up with a very expensive legal bill and no green at all and also be showned up for the liers that they are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC_Red Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 with the average VG granted being 0.75 acres surely you think they would be happy Seeing how 19 people would get over an acre each I'd say they should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff65 Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 The whole reason that and Still Waters will fail is that there saying the Inspectors report is legally binding, Its not and anyone who read the independant inspectors report will know this as it states at the top of the independant inspectors report that its a recomendation and no way leaglly binding, I could recomend you jump off the bridge but it doesn't mean you have to do it leagily, The council get the final say then its up to ether side to appeal I think if the TVGers appeal they will end up with a very expensive legal bill and no green at all and also be showned up for the liers that they are A judicial review, I think is based on how the Council goes about making the decision rather than the decision it's self, the Council's report is all about how Councillors come to a decision rather than what decision is most preferable, provided the Councillors stick to the reasoning explained in the Council's report and express themselves in the same way as the report, then that's that. i.r. If they say after reading the Inspector's report and considering the new evidence presented, I have come to the conclusion that the South fields should be registered but the North fields should not be registered. If the Councillors stick to that then the TVGers will have to prove that either the Council did something wrong procedurally or that the Councillor's were unreasonable in coming to the conclusions they have. If the Councillors have said they have read the report and considered the new evidence then the report becomes obsolete and the TVGers will have to prove that the new evidence was introduced in a manner which is consistent to the law. I also believe that only the two applicants can ask for the judicial review and not anyone else. I am not in the legal profession, the above are my beliefs and not legal opinion by a legal professional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 The council get the final say then its up to ether side to appeal I think if the TVGers appeal they will end up with a very expensive legal bill and no green at all and also be showned up for the liers that they are They have to first apply for an appeal, i.e. they have to stand infront of a judge and convince him why they should be granted 42 acre site and not (if the land was split) a 22 acre site. Only if the judge agreed would it go to a full JR. I believe the leaking of these documents and general last ditch tactics indicate they are deeply worried that if the council decide to split the land then it's game over. ...and if they appeal they are exposed as being anti stadium, which we already knew already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megansdad Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 The document basically seems to say that anyone who gave additional evidence against TVG was making it up......while those who claimed they regularly went ice skating, played football and generally used the site every waking hour were the righteous seekers of truth and justice........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 They have to first apply for an appeal, i.e. they have to stand infront of a judge and convince him why they should be granted 42 acre site and not (if the land was split) a 22 acre site. Only if the judge agreed would it go to a full JR. I believe the leaking of these documents and general last ditch tactics indicate they are deeply worried that if the council decide to split the land then it's game over. ...and if they appeal they are exposed as being anti stadium, which we already knew already. it won't get that far imho, as if expected it gets split I doubt Pickles will review it as it provide much needed investment and jobs at a time when the entire country is starting to feel the pain of govenment cuts as well as its a former landfill site and the fact the avg vg is 0.75a not 42 or even 22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargent Pepper Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 They have to first apply for an appeal, i.e. they have to stand infront of a judge and convince him why they should be granted 42 acre site and not (if the land was split) a 22 acre site. Only if the judge agreed would it go to a full JR. I believe the leaking of these documents and general last ditch tactics indicate they are deeply worried that if the council decide to split the land then it's game over. ...and if they appeal they are exposed as being anti stadium, which we already knew already. So what happens if it gets thrown out or split. Can we kick on with it or do we wait to see if they apply / get an appeal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 Who knows. BTW the file is still here to download if anyone wants a read. http://bristol.indymedia.org/attachments/jun2011/applicants_submission_301011.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 So what happens if it gets thrown out or split. Can we kick on with it or do we wait to see if they apply / get an appeal? they will get so many days to start the appeals process I think I'm not sure how long tho' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.