Steve Lansdown To Speak From Guernsey On Tuesday

[Never to the dark side]

morning between 06:30am and 09:00am

Not sure what radio station as I am having a senior moment

"Charliedinks" you let me know and I'll post it.

No posting of will ever appear on that site that is for individuals that can't string more than two words together

[Monkeh]

just saying to bring it on for the fight

[EmersonsKev]

Steve hasn't got to where he is in business by rolling over at a fight. Bring it on! Common sense will prevail.

[Swede]

I expect him to basically tell the TVG people in a very polite and sensible way to shove it and we'll have the whole site thank you very much

[Barrs Court Red]

No posting of will ever appear on that site that is for individuals that can't string more than two words together

But there's loads of posts on the sags forum?

[CodeRed]

just saying to bring it on for the fight

Why do you think SL/Vence will win?

Just because SL wants it?

So far the NIMBYS have outwitted his plans - he's clearly frustrated hence his aggressive statement but its Bristol Council

who have to do the fighting/make the decision.

CR

[Calculus]

Why do you think SL/Vence will win?

Just because SL wants it?

So far the NIMBYS have outwitted his plans - he's clearly frustrated hence his aggressive statement but its Bristol Council

who have to do the fighting/make the decision.

CR

Have read his statement and it makes no sense to me - just an emotional, and yes, aggressive outburst. What are we saying here, if the JR in May/Jume finds that it was ok to split the site then we are going to ignore that? As we stand Steve seems to be saying that he doesn't want the site split, which is what the SAVE lot are saying. If that's the case why don't we just re-wind, forget the JR as both sides agree that they don't want a split site and go back to BCC and their PROW Committee?

[Antman]

Have read his statement and it makes no sense to me - just an emotional, and yes, aggressive outburst. What are we saying here, if the JR in May/Jume finds that it was ok to split the site then we are going to ignore that? As we stand Steve seems to be saying that he doesn't want the site split, which is what the SAVE lot are saying. If that's the case why don't we just re-wind, forget the JR as both sides agree that they don't want a split site and go back to BCC and their PROW Committee?

i read the judges summary and in it he is clearly critical of SL's statement about costs incurred (£8K is mentioned) that will have p1ssed him off for sure, as effectively at the same time the judge is agreeing with what appears to be spurious hearsay on the part of the SAVE group regards 'harrassment' - he certainly seems to have been taken in.

the question is that how will he go about reclaiming the half he was giving up for wildlife etc? surely that would have to go through planning and the council haven't exactly got the balls to make a stand, and given they are now to be scrutinised over the original decision, i wouldn't hold my breath about them holding firm against the SAVE lot.

I would also strongly question the advice and quality of the BCC counsel - he comes in for pretty robust criticism for some of his arguments.

at the ned of the day, what comes over strongly is how the whole system is open to abuse and hinges on decisions of old gits in wigs

[NickJ]

i read the judges summary and in it he is clearly critical of SL's statement about costs incurred (£8K is mentioned)

To be specific, the judge points out that the Interested Parties (ie Vence and The Ashton Vale Project) could not have known about the Notice of Discontinuance from SDR until the day after it was lodged, ie 17 February, which was a Friday. The substitution application was made on the following Monday, 20 February and fresh proceedings issued the following day on 21 February.

SL refers to a meeting which was convened, presumably, following the Notice of Discontinuance on 16 February but before the substitution application on 20 February, or at least before the fresh proceedings on 21 February, with a weekend intervening, this meeting involving, according to SL's witness statement, BCFC officials, the project management team, legal advisors, the preferred stadium contractor, the stadium architects, engineers, F&E specialists and the IT contractor.

The inference from SL's witness statement is that this meeting cost £8,000 and was expenditure induced by SDR's discontinuance. A meeting involving that little lot actually sounds quite cheap to me, however I think the main point the judge was making was that someone must have had an effing efficient secretary to arrange it in the time available! or, as he put it, "Although I have no reason to doubt the broad truthfulness of that statement, there would certainly be elements in it that might, in another context, be the subject of fruitful cross-examination".

Nicely put, although as the judge goes on to say, more or less, expenditure of £8k on an abortive meeting, irrespective of why or when it took place, is small beer in relation to the whole and certainly not sufficient to affect his decision.

Regarding the harrassment issue, the judge appears to express a view that he is disbelieving that SDR reached his decision without some sort of persuasion, which he naturally considers unacceptable, and, importantly for all the NIMBY haters, he refers to the original application by SDR as being a legitimate challenge to the decision of a public authority. However this issue also has no bearing on his decision.

This saga is where it is. The judge can only make a judgment on where it is now, not whether it should have got to this stage in the first place, and overall, if you read the whole judgment, it is, in my opinion, logical and fair.

[NickJ]

Double post.

[Never to the dark side]

our leader should be on after 08:00am

[screech]

To be specific, the judge points out that the Interested Parties (ie Vence and The Ashton Vale Project) could not have known about the Notice of Discontinuance from SDR until the day after it was lodged, ie 17 February, which was a Friday. The substitution application was made on the following Monday, 20 February and fresh proceedings issued the following day on 21 February.

SL refers to a meeting which was convened, presumably, following the Notice of Discontinuance on 16 February but before the substitution application on 20 February, or at least before the fresh proceedings on 21 February, with a weekend intervening, this meeting involving, according to SL's witness statement, BCFC officials, the project management team, legal advisors, the preferred stadium contractor, the stadium architects, engineers, F&E specialists and the IT contractor.

The inference from SL's witness statement is that this meeting cost £8,000 and was expenditure induced by SDR's discontinuance. A meeting involving that little lot actually sounds quite cheap to me, however I think the main point the judge was making was that someone must have had an effing efficient secretary to arrange it in the time available! or, as he put it, "Although I have no reason to doubt the broad truthfulness of that statement, there would certainly be elements in it that might, in another context, be the subject of fruitful cross-examination".

Nicely put, although as the judge goes on to say, more or less, expenditure of £8k on an abortive meeting, irrespective of why or when it took place, is small beer in relation to the whole and certainly not sufficient to affect his decision.

Regarding the harrassment issue, the judge appears to express a view that he is disbelieving that SDR reached his decision without some sort of persuasion, which he naturally considers unacceptable, and, importantly for all the NIMBY haters, he refers to the original application by SDR as being a legitimate challenge to the decision of a public authority. However this issue also has no bearing on his decision.

This saga is where it is. The judge can only make a judgment on where it is now, not whether it should have got to this stage in the first place, and overall, if you read the whole judgment, it is, in my opinion, logical and fair.

Pretty one sided view of it again Nick. He really upset you in the past didn't he?

[RedZepperin]

Pretty one sided view of it again Nick. He really upset you in the past didn't he?

He's entitled to an opinion, to think for himself and to question things now and again. This is not North Korea.

[screech]

He's entitled to an opinion, to think for himself and to question things now and again. This is not North Korea.

You left out, slate SL whenever he gets the chance to.

[Monkeh]

He's entitled to an opinion, to think for himself and to question things now and again. This is not North Korea.

all he does is slag lansdown off at every moment and he's one sided on the ground front because he doesn't want to walk the extra half a mile with his dad to the new ground,

I'm not worried as its pretty clear that this is about stopping progress now which isn't what TVG is all about the nimbys are going to lose all 42 acres after the JR in the summer

[cheese]

Pretty one sided view of it again Nick. He really upset you in the past didn't he?

Well, I'm 100% for the stadium and for the nimbys to crawl under a stone and stay there - but I agree with Nick - I don't see how the judge could do it any other way.

[NickJ]

Pretty one sided view of it again Nick.

I have simply said what the judge said in his statement. How is that one sided.

You left out, slate SL whenever he gets the chance to.

Explain how in that post or any other I have slated SL.

It seems to me that the majority on here make disparaging comments towards "red trousers", or the "nimbys", or the judges, or whoever, with impunity, but take exception to a fair and polite comment which does not reflect so well for "the cause".

For the record, if I were in SL's shoes and had his views, I might have adopted the same tactics. But I'm not, so, as 99% of posts on here attempt to discredit the anti stadium camp with comments which are often a distortion of the facts, I think its only fair that an accurate reflection of some of the other facts are reported. Read the judgment and say if I have reported anything inaccurately - I haven't.

[Monkeh]

I have simply said what the judge said in his statement. How is that one sided.

Explain how in that post or any other I have slated SL.

It seems to me that the majority on here make disparaging comments towards "red trousers", or the "nimbys", or the judges, or whoever, with impunity, but take exception to a fair and polite comment which does not reflect so well for "the cause".

For the record, if I were in SL's shoes and had his views, I might have adopted the same tactics. But I'm not, so, as 99% of posts on here attempt to discredit the anti stadium camp with comments which are often a distortion of the facts, I think its only fair that an accurate reflection of some of the other facts are reported. Read the judgment and say if I have reported anything inaccurately - I haven't.

to be honest as much as I don't agree with the judgement I can see why its made and have no complants in the way he's made it but it will cost the nimbys the split imo

[NickJ]

all he does is slag lansdown off at every moment and he's one sided on the ground front because he doesn't want to walk the extra half a mile with his dad to the new ground,

To be honest you are becoming, with your continued inaccurate assertion of my "slagging off" SL and your inaccurate representation of my views for opposing the new stadium, a bit of a nause. I choose my words carefully, as I prefer to keep debate polite and fair, however you seem unable to do that.

Having a view and commenting on facts does not amount to "slagging off".

to be honest as much as I don't agree with the judgement I can see why its made and have no complants in the way he's made it but it will cost the nimbys the split imo

Thats better and you may well be right.

I do however find the continued reference to "nimbys" as being very insulting. If you move to an area because of its proximity to open space and lack of development, even if it is not particularly attractive as is the case I accept with Ashton Vale, you have every right to oppose development, as indeed the judge points out in his statement.

I live next door to a pub and whereas the majority of people in my village seem to constantly complain about the noise and general unruliness, I accept it as the pub was here many hundreds of years before I was. SL no doubt has a nice pad with unspoit views in Guernsey, I wonder if, in the event of planned development on the scale of Ashton Vale, he would oppose it or criticise his local council as being ant-capitalist and anti-business. I think it is only obvious that he would oppose, in the same way that any other sane person would.

[Barrs Court Red]

Too be fair nick may be one sided, but he's right on this. The decision is reasonable. We all know the council cocked up with the land that they allocated.

SL's comments are clearly aimed to be heard in Westminster, given the forthcoming planning legislation.

[adebolashuffle]

What did SL say ?

[RedZepperin]

You left out, slate SL whenever he gets the chance to.

That is untrue. You, on the other hand, are trying to intimidate him.

[RedZepperin]

all he does is slag lansdown off at every moment...

That is untrue. You, on the other hand, are trying to intimidate him.

[Ron]

Fwiw without having seen any of the judgement Nick's post reads as well thought out and helpful to anyone who hasn't seen it.

[kingswood red]

To be honest you are becoming, with your continued inaccurate assertion of my "slagging off" SL and your inaccurate representation of my views for opposing the new stadium, a bit of a nause. I choose my words carefully, as I prefer to keep debate polite and fair, however you seem unable to do that.

Having a view and commenting on facts does not amount to "slagging off".

Thats better and you may well be right.

I do however find the continued reference to "nimbys" as being very insulting. If you move to an area because of its proximity to open space and lack of development, even if it is not particularly attractive as is the case I accept with Ashton Vale, you have every right to oppose development, as indeed the judge points out in his statement.

I live next door to a pub and whereas the majority of people in my village seem to constantly complain about the noise and general unruliness, I accept it as the pub was here many hundreds of years before I was. SL no doubt has a nice pad with unspoit views in Guernsey, I wonder if, in the event of planned development on the scale of Ashton Vale, he would oppose it or criticise his local council as being ant-capitalist and anti-business. I think it is only obvious that he would oppose, in the same way that any other sane person would.

The needs of the many should always outweigh the needs of the few. Did they move there when it was a rubbish tip, smelling and plagued with seagulls and rats? maybe thats what they want to go back to.

Evolution will always happen whether we like it or not. We all have a choice, rub along with it or move. Every house ever built was greenfield once. Check the planning rules and see what your entitlement is. I think why they are now termed Nimby's is because they are using TVG as a smokescreen for really being anti-stadium. Time for them is running out.

[Redtucks]

I do however find the continued reference to "nimbys" as being very insulting. If you move to an area because of its proximity to open space and lack of development, even if it is not particularly attractive as is the case I accept with Ashton Vale, you have every right to oppose development, as indeed the judge points out in his statement.

I live next door to a pub and whereas the majority of people in my village seem to constantly complain about the noise and general unruliness, I accept it as the pub was here many hundreds of years before I was. SL no doubt has a nice pad with unspoit views in Guernsey, I wonder if, in the event of planned development on the scale of Ashton Vale, he would oppose it or criticise his local council as being ant-capitalist and anti-business. I think it is only obvious that he would oppose, in the same way that any other sane person would.

The point is that all this opposition, and support, has already been considered fully when the project went through all the proper channels regarding planning permission etc. for the new site, and the old, both with Bristol City Council and North Somerset Council.

The proposals were agreed.

It was only then that a spurious claim for a TVG was launched, using a loophole that TVG was not intended for.

If the Ashton Vale residents wanted an open space to continue their "leisure activities", a compromise gave them one.

The fact is that they never wanted a TVG.

They just don't want a stadium in their back yard!

That's why they are referred to as NIMBYs.

[slartibartfast]

The needs of the many should always outweigh the needs of the few. .

I didn't know Mr Spock was a red!

[Sargent Pepper]

So has he been on / what did he say?

[del ete]

That is untrue. You, on the other hand, are trying to intimidate him.

Funny that anyone who disagrees with the minority are classed as being indimidating or bullies again. zzzz

[Ron]

Funny that anyone who disagrees with the minority are classed as being indimidating or bullies again. zzzz

His point was entirely disregarded with a throwaway statement and he was accused of having vested interests, with no attempt to actually counter any of his arguments. Not all that funny.