Skip to content

New Stadium team goes Forth to Parliament!

October 12, 2010

“If you come back with the information, Captain Darling will pump you thoroughly in the debriefing room”

 

new stadium team goes forth

New stadium team on Lansdown's Town Green

 

EVENINGLOST

STOP PRESS. UNPRECEDENTED UPDATE. LOCAL MP’S ATTEND SLAP-UP EXPENSES PAID MEAL.

PRIMAROLO SAYS  “I VOTED FOR THE TOWN GREEN LEGISLATION BUT AM TOO THICK TO REALISE IT WOULD MEAN PROTECTING AREAS OF TOWN GREEN SPACE FROM CONCRETING OVER BY UNSCRUPULOUS PROPERTY MAGNATES AND DODGY BUILDERS”

Full story pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc

Advertisements
13 Comments
  1. harryT permalink
    October 12, 2010 4:21 pm

    The MPs have written a letter calling on councillors to reject the Town Green Application so as to bring about a football stadium on the land for the benefit of the club and others.

    Under the Commons Act 2006, the future use of and aims for the land cannot be taken into account.

    By calling for the Councillors to do so, the MPs are asking them to commit “Misfeasance in Public Office”. This is where a public official acts knowing that he has no power to do the act complained of – causing detriment to the legal rights of some, for the benefit (commercial or otherwise) of others.

    What a bizarre world we now live in where MPs call for Councillors to commit unlawful acts so as to overide the legal rights that have been given to local people by those very MPs only 4 years ago.

  2. October 12, 2010 6:03 pm

    They seem to be getting themselves into a muddle over this. The MP’s don’t appear to recognise the laws they’ve voted for. These laws can’t just be changed overnight to suit their personal ego and ambition.

  3. StillWaters permalink
    October 12, 2010 6:28 pm

    Just out of interest, does this act of inciting Misfeasance in Public Office toward BCC come under Misconduct in Public Office for the MPs? Maybe their Chief Whips should be nudged?

    http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-04909.pdf

    “there is often an additional offence that can be committed where someone ‘attempts, conspires, aids or abets, counsels or procures’ another offence. The problem with attempting to prosecute someone for such an additional offence is that the intent needed to be proved is both for the alleged attempt, conspiracy, aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring’ the first offence, but also the intent to commit the original offence.”

    I think a bloody great big article in a newsrag is ‘proof enough’…

  4. BobS permalink
    October 12, 2010 6:46 pm

    I think that the whole point of all this media PR pressure is to make BCC act illegally and then dare the Applicants to take the next step of taking it to court for judicial review and bringing the misfeasance in public office charges.

    The council and the club has underestimated the ability and resolve of their opponents throughout. They will continue to do so. I am expecting the council to act illegally intentionally and then whine like little children when taken to task by locals and the courts.

    This is going to be career ending for those who back the club over this. But they are too stupid and too fearsome of the media to do otherwise.

  5. StillWaters permalink
    October 12, 2010 7:11 pm

    I have taken this a step further – awaiting advice from sources….

  6. StillWaters permalink
    October 12, 2010 8:00 pm

    Just in case anyone wants to raise this particular issue;

    Patrick McLoughlin (Conservative Chief Whip) patrick.mcloughlin.mp@parliament.uk

    Rosie Winterton (Labour Chief Whip) wintertonr@parliament.uk

    Alistair Carmichael (LibDem Chief Whip) carmichaela@parliament.uk

    The article doesn’t provide further details, just ” six MPs from all political parties” – I’m assuming they don’t include BNP/UKIP/Plaid Cymru – hard to tell with the vague factual reportage.

    more than 2 links in post held in spam queue

  7. BobS permalink
    October 12, 2010 8:19 pm

    I’m not sure legal advice is needed Stillwaters (albeit I would be interested to see any that you get). The law is clear and on our side. The judges will not be impressed by Lansdown and the BEP the way that politicians sadly are. Judges have jobs for life and don’t rely upon political funding and media exposure.

    We are three nil up but the second half is likely to be played in the courts and not in the council house.

  8. StillWaters permalink
    October 12, 2010 8:28 pm

    Cheers BobS (wish I had your email, this is burning my fingers at the moment) but I think for my particular purpose/intent, I need advice on ‘proper channeling’ to maximise results.

    Although it has been briefly touched on within the BEP comments threads (and mostly ignored by the heavy tread of ‘my opinion is truth!’ brigades), I think that a certain chink in the armour of the pro-stadium lobby can be crowbarred wide open.

  9. Chris E permalink
    October 13, 2010 12:40 pm

    Where in the Commons Act 2006 is this laid out?

  10. harryT permalink
    October 13, 2010 2:45 pm

    The criteria which can be taken into account are set out in S. 15 of the Act.

    The Inspector in para 578 of her report states “[The Registration Authority] must, of course, leave out of account as being wholly irrelevant to the statutory question which it has to decide (namely, whether the Application Land or any part of it is land which satsifies the criteria for registrability laid down in section 15(2) of the 2006 Act) all considerations of the desirability of the land’s being registered as a green or being developed or put to other uses.

  11. StillWaters permalink
    October 14, 2010 8:34 pm

    update: passed on to a relevant source eager for such info, awaiting developments.

  12. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    October 15, 2010 1:45 pm

    I’m intrigued as to why my own MP Dawn keeps harping on about jobs for South Bristol. OK, Ashton Vale may be in SB (just about), but when regeneration and SB are talked about it usually means Knowle West, Hartcliffe, and Withywood where new jobs are certainly needed. In fact, with no public transport from these areas to Ashton Vale, and with the only vehicle access on the A370, it would be closer and far easier to reach these jobs from the villages of North Somerset or from places like Clifton, Hotwells or even the City itself than the afore mentioned districts. Perhaps she is assuming that the type of jobs on offer would not interest people from these other areas. In any event, Dawn should know better than most that you cannot guarantee jobs to anyone. Remember “British jobs for British workers”.

  13. StillWaters permalink
    October 15, 2010 5:44 pm

    Paul,

    Thanks for that angle on access to the proposed development – it never occurred to me. I have included it in this letter to ‘Arr Dorn’

    “Dear Dawn Primarolo,

    Thank you for your earlier response. I note that you have been quoted in a Bristol Evening Post article (online version here: http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/MPs-UNITED/article-2746580-detail/article.html )

    One point that doesn’t appear in the article is whether you personally signed the Statement. Can you either confirm or deny this please?

    Can you also either send me a copy of the statement, or otherwise show me where the full statement has been published?

    Can you also expand on your quote of “It’s also about very major regeneration of south Bristol and its future prosperity and development” when it’s clear that this particular corner of South Bristol has no need of regeneration and when ‘regeneration’ is discussed locally it usually means Knowle West, Hartcliffe and Withywood, where new jobs are certainly needed.

    In fact, with no public transport from these areas to Ashton Vale and with the only vehicle access being the A370, it would be closer to and far easier to reach these jobs from the villages of North Somerset or from places like Clifton, Hotwells or even the City itself than the afore-mentioned districts.

    Finally, the article quotes ‘Ms Primarolo admitted she voted in favour of the town green legislation but always believed it was intended to cover much smaller plots of land – not 42 acres.’

    Two questions here:

    1) I have been informed you weren’t in attendance on the day of vote – is this incorrect?

    2) 42 acres is ‘significantly’ smaller than the largest site with Village Green status in the UK. Does this alter your view?

    Yours sincerely,

Comments are closed.