|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Sept 30, 2023 6:39:23 GMT
I think the problem with the GP and in particular the Cllr Edwards, just like Radice before her, is the blatant lies they tell in objection.
Then you had that knob jockey Danack, who’s one of her minions on her peddling the same lies.
As soon as I took their lies apart publicly on the X or here, Edwards stopped communicating to save face and many times Danack was either peddling the prophecy of Edwards message and didn’t know which way was up anyway.
They do it in the name of mother earths protection and to ensure they do things properly and yet in the past have set up Ltd companies as a protection against personal bankruptcy to advance their ideology at the tax payers expense.
Awful awful bunch of people.
|
|
|
|
Post by playtowin on Sept 30, 2023 7:43:40 GMT
Its seems very apparent that when there are developments the logical thing to do is to incorporate 'green' things in the plans.
By contacting the GP in advance asking their opinion on your 'green project' within the actual project . This may actually have them enthusiastic about a build.
How expensive would it be for BRFC to purchase a pasture and create a wild flower meadow. ? Or another type of habitat.
Fans and the public on the whole may even wish to sponsor the project (?).
Does the carpark have a covered safe bicycle 'shed' ? Or area for cyclists to change/store wet weather/helmets etc ?
Could the club offer ticket price reductions to those who use public transport or use the bikeshed ?
Im sure there are hundreds of things we could do to make BRFC a real 'green' asset.
|
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Sept 30, 2023 7:53:25 GMT
I think the problem with the GP and in particular the Cllr Edwards, just like Radice before her, is the blatant lies they tell in objection. Then you had that knob jockey Danack, who’s one of her minions on her peddling the same lies. As soon as I took their lies apart publicly on the X or here, Edwards stopped communicating to save face and many times Danack was either peddling the prophecy of Edwards message and didn’t know which way was up anyway. They do it in the name of mother earths protection and to ensure they do things properly and yet in the past have set up Ltd companies as a protection against personal bankruptcy to advance their ideology at the tax payers expense. Awful awful bunch of people. What we're their lies? Is it all still on your X account to read? Can you drop a link? |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Sept 30, 2023 7:57:39 GMT
Its seems very apparent that when there are developments the logical thing to do is to incorporate 'green' things in the plans. By contacting the GP in advance asking their opinion on your 'green project' within the actual project . This may actually have them enthusiastic about a build. How expensive would it be for BRFC to purchase a pasture and create a wild flower meadow. ? Or another type of habitat. Fans and the public on the whole may even wish to sponsor the project (?). Does the carpark have a covered safe bicycle 'shed' ? Or area for cyclists to change/store wet weather/helmets etc ? Could the club offer ticket price reductions to those who use public transport or use the bikeshed ? Im sure there are hundreds of things we could do to make BRFC a real 'green' asset. There's no room for a meadow by the South Stand. There's no carpark involved in the South Stand. Since there is no increase in recent capacity with the new South Stand there is no need for a transport plan. Don't get me wrong - they are all reasonable ideas that the club should consider, but they should not be linked to this planning application. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Sept 30, 2023 8:01:28 GMT
"the other is acting to run society and the country" So the Tory's have just been objectively doing the best they can to run society without any other motivation?' But the Greens are ideologically driven? Sure the Greens are ideologically in favour of say nationalising water industries but then all other parties are ideologically in favour of keeping them in private hands. They also have no reason - ideological or otherwise - to oppose the construction of a small stand at Rovers in principle. Also other parties are ideologically pro car and pro car industry. London is a city in which most people travel by public transport and is not communist it just decided to do things differently. Anyway only important point to this thread is that all parties are ideological and people's personal politics (and ideology) is massively over politicising what is actually just a logistical and procedural shambles. A lot of Rovers supporters, many on this forum, remember the extreme (and some would say unethical) steps that local Green Party activists took to derail the club's last attempt to develop a new ground (and in turn the current site). There was a lot more to it than this, but the short version was that local Green Party councillors and their Green party activists formed a limited company to hide the funding that allowed them to launch a Judicial Review that was effectively laughed out of court - all to stop a development they didn't like but one that had already passed every other planning hurdle. Whilst the Judicial Review failed, the costs and delays incurred meant the plan had to be abandoned and whilst the club survived it risked the financial future of the club all to meet the Green's ideological ideas... Radice (who was my local councillor at the time) failed to respond to my very polite emails and social media posts about what she was doing and why she was doing it, leaving me effectively unrepresented as a local resident. Hardly an acceptable way for an elected representative to behave.... ...so the long and the short of it is that whilst a week is a long time in politics, it will take a lot of Bristol Rovers supporters a *very* long time to forget, let alone forgive what the local Green Party did to our club.... Unethical is very subjective. I see things like parking in disabled bays without a blue badge as unethical. Some would see continuing to build a stand without planning permission as unethical. Unethical is a stick that people use when they haven't got a legal argument to use. |
|
|
|
Post by playtowin on Sept 30, 2023 8:06:49 GMT
Its seems very apparent that when there are developments the logical thing to do is to incorporate 'green' things in the plans. By contacting the GP in advance asking their opinion on your 'green project' within the actual project . This may actually have them enthusiastic about a build. How expensive would it be for BRFC to purchase a pasture and create a wild flower meadow. ? Or another type of habitat. Fans and the public on the whole may even wish to sponsor the project (?). Does the carpark have a covered safe bicycle 'shed' ? Or area for cyclists to change/store wet weather/helmets etc ? Could the club offer ticket price reductions to those who use public transport or use the bikeshed ? Im sure there are hundreds of things we could do to make BRFC a real 'green' asset. There's no room for a meadow by the South Stand. There's no carpark involved in the South Stand. Since there is no increase in recent capacity with the new South Stand there is no need for a transport plan. Don't get me wrong - they are all reasonable ideas that the club should consider, but they should not be linked to this planning application. They don't need to be in the planning for the south stand. Just projects being run at the same time . Also continual projects that involve the green party being positive and proactive towards us. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Sept 30, 2023 8:08:12 GMT
Its seems very apparent that when there are developments the logical thing to do is to incorporate 'green' things in the plans. By contacting the GP in advance asking their opinion on your 'green project' within the actual project . This may actually have them enthusiastic about a build. How expensive would it be for BRFC to purchase a pasture and create a wild flower meadow. ? Or another type of habitat. Fans and the public on the whole may even wish to sponsor the project (?). Does the carpark have a covered safe bicycle 'shed' ? Or area for cyclists to change/store wet weather/helmets etc ? Could the club offer ticket price reductions to those who use public transport or use the bikeshed ? Im sure there are hundreds of things we could do to make BRFC a real 'green' asset. There's no room for a meadow by the South Stand. There's no carpark involved in the South Stand. Since there is no increase in recent capacity with the new South Stand there is no need for a transport plan. Don't get me wrong - they are all reasonable ideas that the club should consider, but they should not be linked to this planning application. It has been presented that there will be no increase in capacity at the ground. I do wonder if this is a bit of a red herring. We know that the club has actually throttled back the number of people on the Thatchers end. If once the South stand was built, we went back to pre covid Thatchers end (no legal reason why we couldn't), would that still be less than we had before? |
|
|
|
Post by bridgwatergas on Sept 30, 2023 8:10:55 GMT
Yes Sainsburys did the dirty on us but if the Greens hadn't held up everything with there judicial review rubbish then the projects would have already started and Rovers would now be sat in the UWE. Whether or not that's a good thing for the club or not is a different debate but I would forgive Sainsburys well before, if ever I would forgive the Greens. You would never forgive the Greens for raising objections to a planning application, but you can forgive Sainsbury's for signing a contract and then walking away from it because they didn't like it any more? I just don't understand this forum or modern thinking any more. It's almost surreal. Oh well. I'm just going to go with the herd and blame the Green party for everything that has ever gone wrong with our club. Yay! You don't understand modern thinking the Greens delayed a project with a judicial review that had no chance of winning but as they delayed things for a year that had passed all the planning procedures and gave Sainsburys a chance to walk away from a 'water tight' contract. The way they went around things has that slipped your memory? I haven't blamed the Greens for the South Stand as that is a totally different situation where blame for the debacle of a simple project lies in many different areas. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2023 8:17:50 GMT
I think the problem with the GP and in particular the Cllr Edwards, just like Radice before her, is the blatant lies they tell in objection. Then you had that knob jockey Danack, who’s one of her minions on her peddling the same lies. As soon as I took their lies apart publicly on the X or here, Edwards stopped communicating to save face and many times Danack was either peddling the prophecy of Edwards message and didn’t know which way was up anyway. They do it in the name of mother earths protection and to ensure they do things properly and yet in the past have set up Ltd companies as a protection against personal bankruptcy to advance their ideology at the tax payers expense. Awful awful bunch of people. we can all live in their green world with money and only visit our second homes every other weekend. Unfortunately the ground is smack bang in the middle of these hypocrite preachers |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Sept 30, 2023 8:50:39 GMT
A lot of Rovers supporters, many on this forum, remember the extreme (and some would say unethical) steps that local Green Party activists took to derail the club's last attempt to develop a new ground (and in turn the current site). There was a lot more to it than this, but the short version was that local Green Party councillors and their Green party activists formed a limited company to hide the funding that allowed them to launch a Judicial Review that was effectively laughed out of court - all to stop a development they didn't like but one that had already passed every other planning hurdle. Whilst the Judicial Review failed, the costs and delays incurred meant the plan had to be abandoned and whilst the club survived it risked the financial future of the club all to meet the Green's ideological ideas... Radice (who was my local councillor at the time) failed to respond to my very polite emails and social media posts about what she was doing and why she was doing it, leaving me effectively unrepresented as a local resident. Hardly an acceptable way for an elected representative to behave.... ...so the long and the short of it is that whilst a week is a long time in politics, it will take a lot of Bristol Rovers supporters a *very* long time to forget, let alone forgive what the local Green Party did to our club.... Unethical is very subjective. I see things like parking in disabled bays without a blue badge as unethical. Some would see continuing to build a stand without planning permission as unethical. Unethical is a stick that people use when they haven't got a legal argument to use. You will find it hard to convince me that it's not unethical for a local councillor who, having seen the council she is a member of pass planning permission for a project, to decide to become one of the directors of a limited company set up with the sole intention of overturning that decision. I guess the only way it would be more unethical is for the company to fold before publishing the accounts so everyone could see who funded the nonsense but carefully timed Judicial Review. Just to clarify, 'ethical' would have been the Green Party launching the Judicial Review themselves - either the local branch or the national party, or just under one named individual....only problem with that plan would be if the party did it the donations would have to be declared, and if an individual launched it either the costs or the risk (sure you can google which, I can't remember exactly) would have been a lot higher. Legally, planning permission is not required to start building the stand.... |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Sept 30, 2023 12:01:40 GMT
Unethical is very subjective. I see things like parking in disabled bays without a blue badge as unethical. Some would see continuing to build a stand without planning permission as unethical. Unethical is a stick that people use when they haven't got a legal argument to use. You will find it hard to convince me that it's not unethical for a local councillor who, having seen the council she is a member of pass planning permission for a project, to decide to become one of the directors of a limited company set up with the sole intention of overturning that decision. I guess the only way it would be more unethical is for the company to fold before publishing the accounts so everyone could see who funded the nonsense but carefully timed Judicial Review. Just to clarify, 'ethical' would have been the Green Party launching the Judicial Review themselves - either the local branch or the national party, or just under one named individual....only problem with that plan would be if the party did it the donations would have to be declared, and if an individual launched it either the costs or the risk (sure you can google which, I can't remember exactly) would have been a lot higher. Legally, planning permission is not required to start building the stand.... I had a hunch you were getting your Unethical mixed up with your legals. I don't necessarily disagree with the approach being unethical. It certainly was from a Rovers fans perspective. From a local residents perspective it was probably ethical. What I am saying is that ethical and unethical are subjective. I then mentioned that building the stand wulithout planning permission could be seen as unethical. Your response is that its not illegal. I'm not sure the Ltd company stuff was illegal either. |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Oct 1, 2023 11:33:29 GMT
You will find it hard to convince me that it's not unethical for a local councillor who, having seen the council she is a member of pass planning permission for a project, to decide to become one of the directors of a limited company set up with the sole intention of overturning that decision. I guess the only way it would be more unethical is for the company to fold before publishing the accounts so everyone could see who funded the nonsense but carefully timed Judicial Review. Just to clarify, 'ethical' would have been the Green Party launching the Judicial Review themselves - either the local branch or the national party, or just under one named individual....only problem with that plan would be if the party did it the donations would have to be declared, and if an individual launched it either the costs or the risk (sure you can google which, I can't remember exactly) would have been a lot higher. Legally, planning permission is not required to start building the stand.... I had a hunch you were getting your Unethical mixed up with your legals. I don't necessarily disagree with the approach being unethical. It certainly was from a Rovers fans perspective. From a local residents perspective it was probably ethical. What I am saying is that ethical and unethical are subjective. I then mentioned that building the stand wulithout planning permission could be seen as unethical. Your response is that its not illegal. I'm not sure the Ltd company stuff was illegal either. I know the difference between unethical and illegal thanks...in the same way that I can discuss two separate topics in the same reply. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Oct 1, 2023 11:43:49 GMT
I had a hunch you were getting your Unethical mixed up with your legals. I don't necessarily disagree with the approach being unethical. It certainly was from a Rovers fans perspective. From a local residents perspective it was probably ethical. What I am saying is that ethical and unethical are subjective. I then mentioned that building the stand wulithout planning permission could be seen as unethical. Your response is that its not illegal. I'm not sure the Ltd company stuff was illegal either. I know the difference between unethical and illegal thanks...in the same way I can discuss two separate topics in the same reply. I'm not sure anyone said that building the stand without planning permission was illegal. I said that the local residents could see the building of the stand as unethical. In their minds as ethical/unethical is subjective. I also said: "Unethical is a stick that people use when they haven't got a legal argument to use." Which I stand by. The green party may have acted unethically in the minds of Rovers fans but they didn't do anything illegal. In the same way that the club continuing to build the stand without planning permission to the local residents may be considered as unethical and you rightly point out its not illegal. |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Oct 1, 2023 12:20:12 GMT
I know the difference between unethical and illegal thanks...in the same way I can discuss two separate topics in the same reply. I'm not sure anyone said that building the stand without planning permission was illegal. I said that the local residents could see the building of the stand as unethical. In their minds as ethical/unethical is subjective. I also said: "Unethical is a stick that people use when they haven't got a legal argument to use." Which I stand by. The green party may have acted unethically in the minds of Rovers fans but they didn't do anything illegal. In the same way that the club continuing to build the stand without planning permission to the local residents may be considered as unethical and you rightly point out its not illegal. Yes, we are discussing two different issues and describing them in two different ways . ...and I stand by everything I've said about specific Green Party members (as well as their local party activists) acting unethically. When they failed to stop the development using the standard processes (planning permission) they used their elected positions and their local political network to plan and scheme away from the public eye and ignoring at least some of their local electorate. Nothing illegal as far as we know. As for the South Stand, there is a statutory time limit to process certain parts of a planning application. BCC missed it by not just a few days but by many weeks. The build is time sensitive and the council (not the club, at least at first) were the causes of the delay to a planning application that the external companies contracted by the club and most independent observers all agree should be approved. So is it unethical to start to build it whilst the local politicians and civil servants fail to meet their obligations? Again, that's decided by whether you are pro or anti the stand being built, but if you could find an independent person to judge it, and they noted the legal (and missed) timescales, the costs to the club/fans of the (council) delays and the general view that it meets all planning requirements, they *might* conclude that starting the build is a sensible step to avoid even further costs and delays... |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Oct 1, 2023 12:27:06 GMT
I'm not sure anyone said that building the stand without planning permission was illegal. I said that the local residents could see the building of the stand as unethical. In their minds as ethical/unethical is subjective. I also said: "Unethical is a stick that people use when they haven't got a legal argument to use." Which I stand by. The green party may have acted unethically in the minds of Rovers fans but they didn't do anything illegal. In the same way that the club continuing to build the stand without planning permission to the local residents may be considered as unethical and you rightly point out its not illegal. Yes, we are discussing two different issues and describing them in two different ways . ...and I stand by everything I've said about specific Green Party members (as well as their local party activists) acting unethically. When they failed to stop the development using the standard processes (planning permission) they used their elected positions and their local political network to plan and scheme away from the public eye and ignoring at least some of their local electorate. Nothing illegal as far as we know. As for the South Stand, there is a statutory time limit to process certain parts of a planning application. BCC missed it by not just a few days but by many weeks. The build is time sensitive and the council (not the club, at least at first) were the causes of the delay to a planning application that the external companies contracted by the club and most independent observers all agree should be approved. So is it unethical to start to build it whilst the local politicians and civil servants fail to meet their obligations? Again, that's decided by whether you are pro or anti the stand being built, but if you could find an independent person to judge it, and they noted the legal (and missed) timescales, the costs to the club/fans of the (council) delays and the general view that it meets all planning requirements, they *might* conclude that starting the build is a sensible step to avoid even further costs and delays... Do you know that as a fact? Surely the fact that we have withdrawn and resubmitted suggests something different? |
|
|
|
Post by bidefordgas on Oct 1, 2023 12:34:00 GMT
Yes, we are discussing two different issues and describing them in two different ways . ...and I stand by everything I've said about specific Green Party members (as well as their local party activists) acting unethically. When they failed to stop the development using the standard processes (planning permission) they used their elected positions and their local political network to plan and scheme away from the public eye and ignoring at least some of their local electorate. Nothing illegal as far as we know. As for the South Stand, there is a statutory time limit to process certain parts of a planning application. BCC missed it by not just a few days but by many weeks. The build is time sensitive and the council (not the club, at least at first) were the causes of the delay to a planning application that the external companies contracted by the club and most independent observers all agree should be approved. So is it unethical to start to build it whilst the local politicians and civil servants fail to meet their obligations? Again, that's decided by whether you are pro or anti the stand being built, but if you could find an independent person to judge it, and they noted the legal (and missed) timescales, the costs to the club/fans of the (council) delays and the general view that it meets all planning requirements, they *might* conclude that starting the build is a sensible step to avoid even further costs and delays... Do you know that as a fact? Surely the fact that we have withdrawn and resubmitted suggests something different? Surely it must be crystal clear to the majority of gasheads that the resubmition of the plans is to satisfy the objectors, nothing more nothing less. The club and others clearly thought the original plans were ok as did the planning department, but the greens cried spilt milk over a piece of overgrown wasteland and made unproven claims about unsafe practices by the contractors. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Oct 1, 2023 12:45:24 GMT
Do you know that as a fact? Surely the fact that we have withdrawn and resubmitted suggests something different? , nothing more nothing less. The club and others clearly thought the original plans were ok as did the planning department, but the greens cried spilt milk over a piece of overgrown wasteland and made unproven claims about unsafe practices by the contractors. I think maybe you have answered your own question. To say that we have resubmitted to satisfy objectors, suggests that we wouldn't get granted PP if we didn't resubmit. What if these objectors are the ones making the decision around PP? Why didn't we just say "f**k that" and carry on the the PP application? There are only three options: 1) We have changed the plans in the construction, a voluntary change. 2) We have decided to be good neighbours and listen to the locals and make changes, a voluntary change. 3) We have been told that unless the application is changed, we won't get planning permission. It can only be one of those options. You are suggesting the second one? |
|
|
|
Post by bluesky on Oct 1, 2023 13:08:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bidefordgas on Oct 1, 2023 14:03:09 GMT
Surely it must be crystal clear to the majority of gasheads that the resubmition of the plans is to satisfy the objectors, nothing more nothing less. The club and others clearly thought the original plans were ok as did the planning department, but the greens cried spilt milk over a piece of overgrown wasteland and made unproven claims about unsafe practices by the contractors. I think maybe you have answered your own question. To say that we have resubmitted to satisfy objectors, suggests that we wouldn't get granted PP if we didn't resubmit. What if these objectors are the ones making the decision around PP? Why didn't we just say "f**k that" and carry on the the PP application? There are only three options: 1) We have changed the plans in the construction, a voluntary change. 2) We have decided to be good neighbours and listen to the locals and make changes, a voluntary change. 3) We have been told that unless the application is changed, we won't get planning permission. It can only be one of those options. You are suggesting the second one? I am suggesting the second one and by satisfying their objections I would suggest we have avoided the application being called in and heard by committee and will just be a decision for the planners alone and not a load of moaning green councillors. |
|
|
|
Post by olskooltoteender on Oct 1, 2023 14:23:27 GMT
That doesn't answer the question about what the agenda is. There agenda is anyones guess. They seem to have a need to delay, derail, scupper , argue , and generally stick their noses into anything that amounts to progress for this football club and this city in general. I'm not going to try and justify it anymore as you are clearly dannack or whatever their name was in disguise. Either their alter-ego or sidekick, one or the other . . . |
|
