Steve Lansdown To Speak From Guernsey On Tuesday

[RedZepperin]

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

What the hell are you talking about?

[Red-Robbo]

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.

Well, you're right about them not being Nimbys - as most of them don't live in Ashton Vale, they are just ideologically opposed to new development on 'greenfield' land - even if that 'greenfield' is actually a foetid swamp - even more so if said development is paid for by a - gasp! - supermarket. Of course, the rug was well pulled out from under their feet when it stopped being a new supermarket and became a relocated one, but by then the battle lines were drawn and they thought they couldn't back down.

As for Long Ashton Council's crusade, I do find it strange that the council has committed every CT payer in the village to an open-ended legal fight on behalf of the dozen or so people who will see the stadium in the far distance. Of course, they've had to make up a bogus congestion argument to back up their position.

[NickJ]

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

I'm not easily intimidated particularly on an internet forum, nevertheless thanks for supporting the notion of fair play.

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

It wasnt so much as disagreeing with a minority as an attempt to discredit with inaccurate accusations.

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.

Correct, though unfortunately its what you come to expect on here.

The fact is that they never wanted a TVG.

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

Almost certainly correct and why should they. The judge has re-iterated that the opposition is perfectly legitimate. In the face of being financially out-muscled, they are using whatever legal means are open to them.

[RedZepperin]

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.

Just once in a while, among all the dross posted on this forum (my crap included), you suddenly discover something really well thought out, really well written and really worth reading.

[KBbcfc]

Just once in a while, among all the dross posted on this forum (my crap included), you suddenly discover something really well thought out, really well written and really worth reading.

CHRIST! Get a room.....

[RedZepperin]

CHRIST! Get a room.....

Back to the dross...

[Redhyde]

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

Many of the greatest crimes against humanity have been committed for these words. Think about it.

I expected this decision because the council is incompetent. The judicial review is probably the right call. It won't stop the development, and it is going to cost the anti stadium people what they say they care about most likely. The problem is, they've been incredibly dishonest in what they used the land for, and what their motives are.

[KBbcfc]

Back to the dross...

I wish you both a long and happy life together

[Avalonred]

CHRIST! Get a room.....

[Jordan Tansley]

I'm not easily intimidated particularly on an internet forum, nevertheless thanks for supporting the notion of fair play.

It wasnt so much as disagreeing with a minority as an attempt to discredit with inaccurate accusations.

Correct, though unfortunately its what you come to expect on here.

Almost certainly correct and why should they. The judge has re-iterated that the opposition is perfectly legitimate. In the face of being financially out-muscled, they are using whatever legal means are open to them.

How can it be so that the opposition is legitimate when they already lost the planning permission battle before this ludicrous TVG application? They had a fair chance in those council hearings and lost. Next time city lose at home should we continue playing once the full time whistle has sounded because we've managed to hoodwink an official into believing a sob story about dog walking?

There is nothing insulting about calling these people Nimby's, they are just that.

[Redtucks]

Almost certainly correct and why should they. The judge has re-iterated that the opposition is perfectly legitimate. In the face of being financially out-muscled, they are using whatever legal means are open to them.

So if you feel i am almost certainly correct, why do you find the continued reference to "nimbys" as being very insulting?

.

[Strictly Obi]

I was always brought up to believe what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong and that in the end the truth will prevail.

The TVG is a well meaning law, that was thought up to protect proper village greens. Not 42 acres of over grown scrub land that has seen occasional use from local residents for mainly dog walking activities.

This is why the residents have had very little support from the wider public.

I did have some sympathy with the residents, but that has now dwindled. And now i fear they will not even get half a village green.

The truth will prevail!

[RedZepperin]

I wish you both a long and happy life together

It's not getting any funnier or any more original but carry on.

[Redtucks]

I was always brought up to believe what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong and that in the end the truth will prevail.

The TVG is a well meaning law, that was thought up to protect proper village greens. Not 42 acres of over grown scrub land that has seen occasional use from local residents for mainly dog walking activities.

This is why the residents have had very little support from the wider public.

I did have some sympathy with the residents, but that has now dwindled. And now i fear they will not even get half a village green.

The truth will prevail!

But they don't want half a village green, they don't even want a full village green.

They just don't want a stadium!

[Strictly Obi]

yes, sorry this is the point i was trying to make. I think the local residents would have had much wider support and sympathy from the Bristol public if there case was legitimate. I feel sure that if i was a local resident, i would have been more than happy with the compromise. I think the VG act itself is too ambiguous though and will be resigned to history in the coming years. Shame as legitimate village greens do need to be protected!

[Guest]

So anyway... did anyone actually hear what he said?

[CalifoniaRed]

Any news on what SL actually said this morning?

[real_bristol]

Sooo....what did SL say for those of us unable to listen to the broadcast ?

He vowed to carry on and showed a lot of spirited passion of the sort required on the pitch at the moment. He's had numerous opportunity to back down and has so far stuck with us through thick and thin, I cannot understand why some people get on his back and often wonder where their hearts truely lie.

He also stated that the original application for JR was thrown out and a completely new permission for a new JR application was allowed (4 months late). He couldn't understand what the point in the law was and couldn't understand why the existing permission for JR wasn't just carried over, I think it means the nimbys have to re-apply now???

When questionned whether to go for the 42 acres or not he said we will back the council as much as possible, not ruling it out as a possibility, I guess he'll make that decision after the JR if there will be one.

He also made it clear that this is taking up too much of the club's time and that they need to take a back foot and leave it up to the council and the landowners to proceed, acknowledging the bigger fish to fry atm.

A lot of love for SL.

[NickJ]

So if you feel i am almost certainly correct, why do you find the continued reference to "nimbys" as being very insulting?

Because most of the references to nimbys are used in a derogatory context, often preceded by expressions of support for SL along the lines of "go on Steve let them have some", as though these people had no right to use the legal means to oppose planning permission in the same way that SL is using legal means to attempt to gain planning permission. Obviously you supporters use the expression in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the opposition, which is fair enough, just as I also feel it is fair that I point out the reality of the position.

In a similar fashion Steve himself makes a ludicrous claim in his comment yesterday that the "the judge's decision is just another illustration of the anti-capitalist and anti-business stance now infecting the UK and Bristol in particular". A tax exile having made a fortune in the very country claimed to be anti-business and anti-capitalist, could be considered to be just a tad hypocritical over that comment, however Steve is just using legitimate means to attempt to put pressure on the people who will make the eventual decision, in the face of what was a very fair and logical decision reached by the judge, possibly the only one he could have made. Steve is just playing mind games, I doubt that he really believes his own comment, but I doubt that any intelligent person will attach any credibility to it anyway.

[Redtucks]

Because most of the references to nimbys are used in a derogatory context, often preceded by expressions of support for SL along the lines of "go on Steve let them have some", as though these people had no right to use the legal means to oppose planning permission in the same way that SL is using legal means to attempt to gain planning permission. Obviously you supporters use the expression in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the opposition, which is fair enough, just as I also feel it is fair that I point out the reality of the position.

In a similar fashion Steve himself makes a ludicrous claim in his comment yesterday that the "the judge's decision is just another illustration of the anti-capitalist and anti-business stance now infecting the UK and Bristol in particular". A tax exile having made a fortune in the very country claimed to be anti-business and anti-capitalist, could be considered to be just a tad hypocritical over that comment, however Steve is just using legitimate means to attempt to put pressure on the people who will make the eventual decision, in the face of what was a very fair and logical decision reached by the judge, possibly the only one he could have made. Steve is just playing mind games, I doubt that he really believes his own comment, but I doubt that any intelligent person will attach any credibility to it anyway.

So, as they don't really want a town green, just that they don't want a stadium in thier back yard, I will continue to call them NIMBYs.

[BCAGFC]

Nick conveniently misses out the part about the withheld/hidden documents from SDR (that Richard Burton solicitors were in possession of) that could have swayed judge Thornton to make a different decision in the first place.

But that doesn't suit his agenda.

The NIMBYs solicitors/AVHG/SAVE have played dirty tricks/quoted technicalities all the way through this sorry saga while SL has played it by the book....................time for him to get dirty now.

BCAGFC

P.s. If you read the TVG legislation, it states that you cannot use it to just block development, there has to be a genuine case to answer...............the NIMBYs are using it illegally as has been shown by LAPC Butcher's comments.

[bcfcbs20]

9 mins in Mr Crispin does'nt sound very Bristolian.

1hr 37 mins Mr Lansdown.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00q2rf9

[NickJ]

Nick conveniently misses out the part about the withheld/hidden documents from SDR (that Richard Burton solicitors were in possession of) that could have swayed judge Thornton to make a different decision in the first place.

But that doesn't suit his agenda.

The NIMBYs solicitors/AVHG/SAVE have played dirty tricks/quoted technicalities all the way through this sorry saga while SL has played it by the book....................time for him to get dirty now.

BCAGFC

P.s. If you read the TVG legislation, it states that you cannot use it to just block development, there has to be a genuine case to answer...............the NIMBYs are using it illegally as has been shown by LAPC Butcher's comments.

Once again OTIB posters in inaccurate representation of the facts shock.

I did not miss out the point about witheld/hidden documents, because there were no witheld/hidden documents, which a simple reading of the relevant extract from the judgment demonstrates.

He tried to persuade me that I should take a different view because of what he presented as a serious piece of non-disclosure by ABC – in practice by Ms Copithorne – in the papers presented to Judge Thornton, inasmuch as she failed to refer explicitly to SDR’s letter of 17 February, although it was included in the bundle of documents for the Judge. Strictly, I think that the letter should have been expressly referred to in the claim form or supporting evidence; but I am sure that the omission was not intentional, nor was it in any sense grave. I think it extremely unlikely that it would have affected the Judge’s decision. Such criticism as may be justified could not, again, possibly justify me in making a different order than I would otherwise think appropriate.

In other words, the relevant documents were in the bundle, they just didn't say, "the relevant documents are in the bundle". Unless Judge Thornton failed to see this very important document in the bundle presented, which I would think you have to accept is unlikely, I think Judge Underhill reaches a fair conclusion here.

I think there is an inference from the judge that in relation to this point and that relating to the apparently hastily convened meeting, you may rest easy that the dirty tricks have, indeed, already commenced on the part of the landowners.

Furthermore, I think we have had this point before, but it is not possible to use the law illegally.

[Jordan Tansley]

Because most of the references to nimbys are used in a derogatory context, often preceded by expressions of support for SL along the lines of "go on Steve let them have some", as though these people had no right to use the legal means to oppose planning permission in the same way that SL is using legal means to attempt to gain planning permission. Obviously you supporters use the expression in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the opposition, which is fair enough, just as I also feel it is fair that I point out the reality of the position.

In a similar fashion Steve himself makes a ludicrous claim in his comment yesterday that the "the judge's decision is just another illustration of the anti-capitalist and anti-business stance now infecting the UK and Bristol in particular". A tax exile having made a fortune in the very country claimed to be anti-business and anti-capitalist, could be considered to be just a tad hypocritical over that comment, however Steve is just using legitimate means to attempt to put pressure on the people who will make the eventual decision, in the face of what was a very fair and logical decision reached by the judge, possibly the only one he could have made. Steve is just playing mind games, I doubt that he really believes his own comment, but I doubt that any intelligent person will attach any credibility to it anyway.

But, Nick, they're not using legal grounds anymore. They/you had the opportunity to stop development in the planning permission hearings. That is THE legal ground and you/they failed. That should be the end of it, but no... These people cheat, lie and mislead their way through a flawed system that the government is actively trying to fix using loophole after loophole. Hardly the most dignified approach from a group who have such high opinions of themselves is it.

And despite this underhand approach these people cry foul at every opportunity when things don't go their way. The actions at the planning meeting show just how pathetic these people are as do the subsequent unsubstantiated claims of harassment.

I was pro stadium before this sorry episode, but now it has become a matter of personal importance to see these nimby's get their just desserts. I also get the feeling that Steve echoes that sentiment, which pleases me no end.

[Super]

Because most of the references to nimbys are used in a derogatory context, often preceded by expressions of support for SL along the lines of "go on Steve let them have some", as though these people had no right to use the legal means to oppose planning permission in the same way that SL is using legal means to attempt to gain planning permission. Obviously you supporters use the expression in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the opposition, which is fair enough, just as I also feel it is fair that I point out the reality of the position.

In a similar fashion Steve himself makes a ludicrous claim in his comment yesterday that the "the judge's decision is just another illustration of the anti-capitalist and anti-business stance now infecting the UK and Bristol in particular". A tax exile having made a fortune in the very country claimed to be anti-business and anti-capitalist, could be considered to be just a tad hypocritical over that comment, however Steve is just using legitimate means to attempt to put pressure on the people who will make the eventual decision, in the face of what was a very fair and logical decision reached by the judge, possibly the only one he could have made. Steve is just playing mind games, I doubt that he really believes his own comment, but I doubt that any intelligent person will attach any credibility to it anyway.

You are lucky they are being referred to as NIMBY'S they deserve far worse.

[Alex#40]

So, as they don't really want a town green, just that they don't want a stadium in thier back yard, I will continue to call them NIMBYs.

As will I.

[BCAGFC]

Once again OTIB posters in inaccurate representation of the facts shock.

I did not miss out the point about witheld/hidden documents, because there were no witheld/hidden documents, which a simple reading of the relevant extract from the judgment demonstrates.

He tried to persuade me that I should take a different view because of what he presented as a serious piece of non-disclosure by ABC – in practice by Ms Copithorne – in the papers presented to Judge Thornton, inasmuch as she failed to refer explicitly to SDR’s letter of 17 February, although it was included in the bundle of documents for the Judge. Strictly, I think that the letter should have been expressly referred to in the claim form or supporting evidence; but I am sure that the omission was not intentional, nor was it in any sense grave. I think it extremely unlikely that it would have affected the Judge’s decision. Such criticism as may be justified could not, again, possibly justify me in making a different order than I would otherwise think appropriate.

In other words, the relevant documents were in the bundle, they just didn't say, "the relevant documents are in the bundle". Unless Judge Thornton failed to see this very important document in the bundle presented, which I would think you have to accept is unlikely, I think Judge Underhill reaches a fair conclusion here.

I think there is an inference from the judge that in relation to this point and that relating to the apparently hastily convened meeting, you may rest easy that the dirty tricks have, indeed, already commenced on the part of the landowners.

Furthermore, I think we have had this point before, but it is not possible to use the law illegally.

It could also be claimed that the omission of that important discontinuation/explaination document could have been intentional as it could have had a serious effect on judge Thornton's view of SDRs withdraw and the reasons behind it (ie: pressure from SAVE/local residents etc etc............NOT BCFC supporters).

It could have put a completely different slant on the harassment issue as both judges seem to have taken RBs version as gospel and totally disregarded the landowners version of events.

And as I said before, Crispin & Butcher who are directly involved in fighting the project have publicly come out and said it is all about stopping ANY development not safeguarding their view of their contaminated, wrongly designated brownfield site.

Also, the farmer was paid to allow residents to use the land, that is against TVG legilsation.

How you can defend people who have basically snatched millions of £s worth of land from a hard working businessman is beyond me, if the NIMBYs were so worried about that piece of land then surely they should have acted before this whole saga started.

I live in Stockwood and there are massive plans for expansion over this way, I couldn't care less about the greenbelt, I care about people being about to find an affordable house to live in, if is causes a bit more congestion around here then that's the way it is...........IT'S CALLED PROGRESS.

BCAGFC

[Frenchay Red]

As I understand it, the TVG claim is fatally flawed, as at the time of application it requires that the land in question has provided uninterupted TVG-type use for 20 years (I think).

This is factually not the case. The land was still being used as a land fill site within this 20 year period and so there is no possibility that it meets the TVG requirements.

All that has followed is a campaign by those (most of whom I suspect live nowhere near the old tip) who are opposed to the development for their own personal and/or political reasons.

[Red Exile]

Steve himself makes a ludicrous claim in his comment yesterday that the "the judge's decision is just another illustration of the anti-capitalist and anti-business stance now infecting the UK and Bristol in particular". A tax exile having made a fortune in the very country claimed to be anti-business and anti-capitalist, could be considered to be just a tad hypocritical over that comment

Agreed Nick. Steve does himself no favours with comments like this. Who on earth advised him to issue a statement like that? By contrast his stance on the radio was quite measured. I was impressed.

The PR on this whole development has been abysmal from the off.

[Davros]

Because most of the references to nimbys are used in a derogatory context, often preceded by expressions of support for SL along the lines of "go on Steve let them have some", as though these people had no right to use the legal means to oppose planning permission in the same way that SL is using legal means to attempt to gain planning permission. Obviously you supporters use the expression in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the opposition, which is fair enough, just as I also feel it is fair that I point out the reality of the position.

In a similar fashion Steve himself makes a ludicrous claim in his comment yesterday that the "the judge's decision is just another illustration of the anti-capitalist and anti-business stance now infecting the UK and Bristol in particular". A tax exile having made a fortune in the very country claimed to be anti-business and anti-capitalist, could be considered to be just a tad hypocritical over that comment, however Steve is just using legitimate means to attempt to put pressure on the people who will make the eventual decision, in the face of what was a very fair and logical decision reached by the judge, possibly the only one he could have made. Steve is just playing mind games, I doubt that he really believes his own comment, but I doubt that any intelligent person will attach any credibility to it anyway.

NIMBY