BS15_RED Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Large-sums-money-offered-drop-Ashton-Vale-stadium/story-15409880-detail/story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 I'd throw this 'evidence' out without a second thought. Surely there is no proof whatsoever and without a police investigation and subsequent trial everyone is innocent anyway. Have they even reported it to the police? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Casual Connoisseur Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 I'd throw this 'evidence' out without a second thought. Suely there is no proof whatsoever and without a police investigation and subsequent trial everyone is innocent anyway. Have they even reported it to the police? That c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Casual Connoisseur Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 I'd throw this 'evidence' out without a second thought. Suely there is no proof whatsoever and without a police investigation and subsequent trial everyone is innocent anyway. Have they even reported it to the police? That could delay things even longer, exactly what they want maybe?! I'd say that false statements and the liability that such issues cause are extremely serious, if they are unfounded then this could prove a costly mistake for someone, if not say goodbye to the stadium for a while and possibly more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex#40 Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 This does seem to be slander or whatever term you care to throw at it. With no evidence of any of this harrassment, intimidation or violence to throw this in the pot with zero evidence surely must be the final straw? These claims are outrageous and totally unproven, how they are allowed to throw these things into the public domain is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS15_RED Posted March 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Sounds like they're getting ever more desperate and nothing is too low for them to stoop too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 That could delay things even longer, exactly what they want maybe?! I'd say that false statements and the liability that such issues cause are extremely serious, if they are unfounded then this could prove a costly mistake for someone, if not say goodbye to the stadium for a while and possibly more. tbh, if someone is causing intimidation/violence then that should be looked at separately in a court at a separate hearing. Can't see why it should have to slow down the process Any anyway, if it was to be tried in court then there needs to be a defendant. So who is being accused? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akira Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 its all too easy to blame us footie fans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Delaying tactics. Pure and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Sounds like they're getting ever more desperate and nothing is too low for them to stoop too. Makes you wonder what's next. BCFC has been developing a dirty bomb? Its all part of SL's evil plan to take of the world. [Menacing chuckle to fade ......] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS15_RED Posted March 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Makes you wonder what's next. BCFC has been developing a dirty bomb? Its all part of SL's evil plan to take of the world. [Menacing chuckle to fade ......] In all seriousness, I think whoever's made this latest 'allegation' should be named, and if the said individual has no evedence to back it up then SL and co should sue them for slander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcliffe 78 Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Brighton to any Nimby trolling this site we will win you know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 In all seriousness, I think whoever's made this latest 'allegation' should be named, and if the said individual has no evedence to back it up then SL and co should sue them for slander. If they want to make a formal accusation then their name would be in the public domain. So the plan is, "say what the hell you like behind a cloak of anonymity." You'd think a judge would know that courts should deal with evidence and not hearsay. So lets have the evidence please. Our courts don't seem terribly robust, do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 I imagine the delay from Friday is probably so evidence can be submitted to corroborate this. Looking at it objectively, none of it adds up. Why are they only now providing evidence of this? Why not report any incidences of 'violence and intimidation' to the police? That would surely only strengthen their claims down the line? This does seem to be a final roll of the dice for them and a rather dangerous path to tread. If they can't back it up it would surely weaken their claims and leave them open to civil action? I just hope a City 'fan' hasn't been coming home from the pub one night and thought it would be helpful to throw a brick through a window or something... As an aside, would it even be illegal to pay off a private individual to drop a case? I dOn't think for a second that the club did anything of the sort, but I can't see what would be illegal about it. 'Out of Court Settlement' springs to mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 I just hope a City 'fan' hasn't been coming home from the pub one night and thought it would be helpful to throw a brick through a window or something... I agree with this. But lets say that did happen, why does it need to be integral to the issue? Any act of unlawful behaviour by some idiot indivisual should be dealt with properly and separately....and we move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 I just hope a City 'fan' hasn't been coming home from the pub one night and thought it would be helpful to throw a brick through a window or something... Do you honestly believe that if the 'alleged' intimidation had the slightest shred of credence that the publicity seeking 'anti's' wouldn't have milked it to death? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dolman Pragmatist Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 This does seem to be slander or whatever term you care to throw at it. With no evidence of any of this harrassment, intimidation or violence to throw this in the pot with zero evidence surely must be the final straw? These claims are outrageous and totally unproven, how they are allowed to throw these things into the public domain is beyond me. On the other hand, perhaps it's true. I have no idea either way, and I doubt anyone else here has either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Ooh lets have a look.. http://www.police.uk/overview/?q=Ashton%20Vale,%20Bristol,%20City%20of%20Bristol%20BS3,%20UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeRed Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 In all seriousness, I think whoever's made this latest 'allegation' should be named, and if the said individual has no evedence to back it up then SL and co should sue them for slander. They havn't named SL or his partners or implied in any way it's down to him - so he can't react. They claim a"businessman with an interest in the develoment" made the approach. That could mean anyone from a contractor hoping to get work on the site to a security firm hoping to get the contract to secure the site when it starts. Or it could mean they made it all up. They kept it deliberately vague so no one can repudiate their claim. CR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS15_RED Posted March 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 If you look at the conduct brigade of all the anti stadium from all the council meetings has been disgraceful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS15_RED Posted March 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 If you look at the conduct of all the anti stadium brigade from all the council meetings over the last four years, it has been disgraceful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Youell Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Now, not that I'm saying this did happen, but. If it did, is it actually illegal out of interest? What are you referring to specifically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Youell Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Say someone did offer the guy money to drop the case against the stadium. Is that actually against the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Say someone did offer the guy money to drop the case against the stadium. Is that actually against the law? Pretty sure its not in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Youell Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Right, So the Nimby's are claiming we did something that's not illegal then? And the problem is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Right, So the Nimby's are claiming we did something that's not illegal then? And the problem is? Don't quote me on that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totender08 Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 It's called perverting the course of justice, IF some individual (s) were offered or accepted what effectively is a bribe It does have to be proven, so if true, evidence has to be provided Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 It's called perverting the course of justice, IF some individual (s) were offered or accepted what effectively is a bribe It does have to be proven, so if true, evidence has to be provided It's not a legal/criminal case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 It's called perverting the course of justice, IF some individual (s) were offered or accepted what effectively is a bribe It does have to be proven, so if true, evidence has to be provided I'm not convinced of that. Surely using your logic then an out-of-court settlement would amount to the same thing? i.e. drop the court action and we'll pay you £600k, a la News International. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.