Skip to content

New survey : same old bull****

November 1, 2010

So the club didn’t commission the survey released today by ITV westcountry tonight, according to Sexton.

The survey is big on headlines but short on detail as usual. Be nice to see a complete publication of all those taking part and all their responses to the questions. Till that happens the whole thing must be treated with a degree of scepticism-especially the way it’s presented in the Evening Lost puffed up anti-town green propaganda series.

Results due to be broadcast  at 6pm ITV westcountry tonight.

Advertisements
57 Comments
  1. Still Waters permalink
    November 1, 2010 6:18 pm

    Full PDF here: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=HKZTN641

  2. Richard Lane permalink
    November 1, 2010 9:31 pm

    How very sad of you to once again make petty insinuations.
    Don’t you think this is a story that the media are interested enough in, to highlight it with a survey and then show to their viewers, as part of their news programme?
    Do you honestly believe that anyone other than the TV company comissioned that survey?
    The club know that the decision will be taken about the TVG on legal matters only. This is why they are requesting more info.
    Of course they will use the survey to further their cause, just as the Applicants for the TVG and stadium opposition are doing in decrying it.

  3. November 1, 2010 10:06 pm

    Can anyone prove that the club had nothing to do with this survey? No chance of a conversation like :

    “Oi ITV! How about you doing a programme about the flippin village green to drum up support! Not that we’re desperate like. Survey would be good-here’s a random list of phone numbers”

    Can’t open the pdf.

  4. Brian Tompson permalink
    November 1, 2010 10:24 pm

    Seriously??!! do you really believe that? this is a very big story ITV would need no inscentive to carry out a survey on this.

    OH MY GOD!!! maybe the village greeners persuaded itv to carry out survey and it back fired, it’s just as possible.

  5. Richard Lane permalink
    November 1, 2010 10:30 pm

    Sacredspring
    Can you prove this survey was commisioned by anyone associated with BCFC ?
    Let me answer for you. No you can’t.
    It is yet another smear by a desperate person.

  6. Still Waters permalink
    November 1, 2010 10:36 pm

    Well, maybe a pointer is in the file name of the results:

    “BristolCityTables 20th October 2010 (2) (1).pdf”

    and the major heading in the document is: “Bristol City Football Club
    Fieldwork: 13th-17th October 2010”

    I think that’s pretty damning, if not legal proof.

    I’ve asked ComRes for further details though.

  7. November 1, 2010 10:41 pm

    There’s some juicy facts about the phone survey that will no doubt surface in due course. Its a murky world out there.

  8. Still Waters permalink
    November 1, 2010 11:06 pm

    Actually, the negative comments on this blog post are fairly horrendous – you took the time to slate Sacred for his post without even viewing the published documents? Yeesh, that’s so.. …spotty teenager!

    seriously, how many people are doing the same thing all over Bristol simply because of someone’s ‘say-so’? (please insert favourite biased media here).

  9. Richard Lane permalink
    November 1, 2010 11:08 pm

    I suppose you would have liked it titled, “village green application survey”
    It’s supposed to have a headline reflecting the reason for a survey, it’s about BCFC trying to build a stadium at Ashton vale, that is why it’s titled as such in my opinion.
    The TVG application is a response by residents to stop that development.

  10. Still Waters permalink
    November 1, 2010 11:09 pm

    Sorry, forgot to point out to the ‘teenagers’ on here that BCFC had this report well before ITV had a copy – ten days in fact (check the date dude, awesome).

  11. Brian Tompson permalink
    November 1, 2010 11:13 pm

    you mean the title to the survey finding the public views about “Bristol Citys” proposed Stadium Site is called … “Bristol City Football Club
    Fieldwork: 13th-17th October 2010″ GOSH!!!
    … Do you really think makes it BCFCs work?

    Blimey I must be careful with my filenames in future, my spreadsheets of apple tree sales could give the ipod producers a hell of alot of agro, let alone my Orange-sales-numbers-1998-2000.pdf

    Frankly this is pathetic, I didn’t realise this was one of those mental conspiracy theory blogs, Just so you know; They did land on the moon, Elvis IS dead, and the flouride in the drinking water is not brainwashing the children.

  12. Still Waters permalink
    November 1, 2010 11:16 pm

    “It’s supposed to have a headline reflecting the reason for a survey, it’s about BCFC trying to build a stadium at Ashton vale, that is why it’s titled as such in my opinion.”

    Ok, so why is the headline ‘ Bristol City Football Club
    Fieldwork: 13th-17th October 2010’?

    I see no mention of stadium in the headline. I see questions pertaining to it, but the headline appears to conclusively denote the major benefactor of the survey.

    I’m also puzzled by the second half of the survey asking about Mayors for Bristol (although the one asking about having a local footballer as mayor really squeezes the cheese)

    “The TVG application is a response by residents to stop that development.”

    Yes, and one they are entitled by law to carry out. Check DEFRA homepage if you like. Nothing illegal there.

  13. Richard Lane permalink
    November 1, 2010 11:20 pm

    I have viewed the documents.
    Sacredspring made a statement without viewing the documents, he alledged they were produced for BCFC, he had no evidence, has offered no evidence, yet he is allowed and revered by you for making unsubstantiated claims.
    It is his and others wild claims and lies that are horrendous.
    Who’s the spotty teenager?
    All the negative comments on this site come from the opponents of the stadium, those comments are refuted and negated by positive statements in support of the stadium. Because they differ from your views you class them as negative.

  14. November 1, 2010 11:25 pm

    The mayor questions were a bit odd. Tacked onto the ‘Bristol City Football Club fieldwork’ (oh dear, someone slipped up there)
    Maybe it was a freebie for the council.

  15. Richard Lane permalink
    November 1, 2010 11:26 pm

    Answer, Because the fieldwork was about BCFC trying to build a stadium.
    The stadium is mentioned in the questions.
    I am also puzzled about the mayor questions, perhaps Lansdown for mayor or, Sacredspring, yippee!

  16. Still Waters permalink
    November 1, 2010 11:26 pm

    My claim is as below, and if you can prove otherwise (i.e., find a reference in the document that links it to ITV) I feel I am justified.

  17. Still Waters permalink
    November 1, 2010 11:28 pm

    Still no ITV in it though.

    Actually, I think they were angling for SL as Mayor..

  18. Brian Tompson permalink
    November 1, 2010 11:29 pm

    Which published documents has “The spotty teenager” ignored, I havnt seen sacred post any docs? :/

    would you accept these results anyway?? It seams to me unless you carry out the survey you would not accept anything as unbiased, or ‘propaganda’.

    So do you accept the findings that the general concensus around South Bristol is that it is ‘not’ a village green and that BCFC should get its new stadium on the site Mr Lansdown has purchased for that very purpose??

  19. Still Waters permalink
    November 1, 2010 11:35 pm

    “So do you accept the findings that the general concensus around South Bristol is that it is ‘not’ a village green and that BCFC should get its new stadium on the site Mr Lansdown has purchased for that very purpose??”

    The local (to me, the most important) consensus is that 71% don’t want the stadium there.

    I’m not a football supporter or hater, so I’ll happily sign a petition to get BCFC a ground on BROWNFIELD land. Nothing less. Oh, it may cost ‘Mr £480 mill’ a few quid more to purchase, but at least everyone will be vaguely happy and you might even build it in time for the WC (subject to status, other football cups are available).

  20. Brian Tompson permalink
    November 1, 2010 11:45 pm

    The local (to me, the most important) consensus is that 71% don’t want the stadium there.

    where is that in the findings??

    See to me it says 58% say yes to stadium at ashton Vale and 31% against. thats basically twice as much. or am I not reading the numbers correctly?

  21. Brian Tompson permalink
    November 1, 2010 11:50 pm

    If ITV comisioned the poll it is perfectly reasonable they would ask them to get consensus on number of subjects. they probably paid for certain amount of data and thought they would get some info for other stories. why do two serveys when you can do one big one.

  22. Brian Tompson permalink
    November 1, 2010 11:57 pm

    Any way I’m off to bed, got a balaclava full of clearasil that I’m gonna wear to get rid of my acne, Maybe It’ll Clear my vision and I’ll have crystal still water sight, I’ll be a bitter old man in no time.

  23. harryT permalink
    November 2, 2010 8:30 am

    The proof of the collusion between ITV and BCFC is the fact that BCFC had the full survey and their press release ready before ITV released the figures. Some independent media that is.

    In fact, ITV had already set up the interview with Colin Sexton way before that.

    If that is not collusion, then what is.

  24. Williams Peaks permalink
    November 2, 2010 9:44 am

    It was on the ITV Westcountry site in video form and PDF well before it was on the BCFC site. FACT!

  25. Williams Peaks permalink
    November 2, 2010 9:45 am

    Indeed a ITV Westcountry account published the file to Box.net on October 29, 2010… http://www.box.net/shared/772vdxsgig

  26. Williams Peaks permalink
    November 2, 2010 9:46 am

    Comres also refer to it as “ITV West Country Bristol City Football ground poll”: http://www.comres.co.uk/ITVbristolcitypollnov10.aspx

  27. Williams Peaks permalink
    November 2, 2010 9:47 am

    The Comres PDF download also includes a prominent ITV logo: http://www.comres.co.uk/systems/file_download.aspx?pg=673&ver=1

  28. harryT permalink
    November 2, 2010 10:07 am

    Mr Peaks – you doth protest too much. FACT.

    Then why the BCFC “embargo” on its pre-prepared press release on Sunday ? Why would the club want to agree to such a thing if it was only commetning on publically available info ?

    Why also do ICM refuse to reveal who in FACT commissioned the survey, insisting that such information is confidential and not even known to them ?

  29. harryT permalink
    November 2, 2010 10:09 am

    and dated 1st November

  30. harryT permalink
    November 2, 2010 10:10 am

    Another interesting FACT is that the ICM phone staff were convinced that Bristol City Council had commissioned the poll

  31. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    November 2, 2010 10:52 am

    Hi Brian. There is no flouride in the Bristol drinking water, that is a fact I promise you is correct. As for the survey, it’s just like an opinion poll, a guide but little more, whoever commissioned it. It’s really now all down to the council committee and the decision they take. I don’t think it will be passed to full council because how many councillors have been trained to make such a decision? Whichever way it goes I can see the other side taking it to higher authority, so I don’t see an early conclusion.

  32. Brian Tompson permalink
    November 2, 2010 10:55 am

    It wasn’t ‘publicly” available, comres had it They gave it to ITV embargoed to the public until they had filmed and sorted out their story, which in turn led to them showing BCFC so that Colin Sexton would know what he was talking about in the interview. BCFC has a PR/Media department they would be outside of the embargo.

    I dont think you understand the system. FACT

  33. Tony Dyer permalink
    November 2, 2010 1:12 pm

    Water is wet. FACT.

    This could become contagious……

    I have to admit to being a bit confused about this poll. As a Green Party activist, I remember during the last election campaign, ComRes used ICM to produce another poll which showed that the Lib Dems would double their number of MPs – but in the end they ended up losing seats. But I guess that’s the problem when you sample a very small number of people. Lies, damn lies and Polling results – just ask poor old Neil Kinnock.

    On the West Country Tonight the poll was described as being sub-divided into two groups.

    The first group were 500 people from what the ITV reporter described as “Greater Bristol”. This was then clarified by explaining that those surveyed were eligible to vote in Bristol City Council elections. I guess that would be that part of “Greater Bristol” usually referred to as “Bristol” then?

    The second group of 500 were those closer to the stadium. The reporter was a bit vague (as was the on-screen “map”*) about what area this covered but the reporter said something about the “wards closest to the stadium” and also said it included residents of North Somerset including Long Ashton. The on-screen “map”* appeared to cover not just Ashton Vale but also the rest of Bedminster as well as Southville – and of course parts of North Somerset including Long Ashton.

    This was on the 6pm Monday 1st November edition of the programme. The previous day Adam “bean head” Baker, BCFC media guy had got quite a few City fans excited by saying that there would be an important announcement about the stadium on the BCFC website at midnight. As a result quite a few City fans stayed up past bedtime only to be somewhat underwhelmed that it was just an opinion poll. However the BCFC headline was;

    [drum-roll] ….”The majority of Bristol – and Ashton Vale – is behind the club’s new stadium, and ITV/ComRes poll has revealed”

    Umm…. just in case you missed that the headline is saying that not only the majority of Bristol but AND the majority of Ashton Vale – are behind the new stadium……

    Except of course that the information released by ITV to the general public only splits the date down into those from “Greater Bristol” and those “from the wards closest to the stadium” including from North Somerset.

    So…..

    Either ITV have “colluded” with BCFC by provided them with more detailed information about the survey allowing BCFC to identify how many of those surveyed lived in Ashton Vale and how they voted…..

    Or…

    BCFC have deliberately produced an headline to mislead their own fanbase, claiming as fact (sorry…FACT) something that they simply don’t have the evidence to back up.

    Umm, answers on a postcard please.

    * The reason why map is written as “map” is because on a previous Ashton Gate Blogger post, when I referred to a document as a map, Mr Richard Lane referred to it as a “map as you call it”. Although, as Mr Lane said he was unable to access the document, I am not quite sure how he surmised that it might not also be “a map as he calls it” or even ” a map as anybody else calls it”. But hey…. life is short. And the guy thinks a Petrol Filling Station is a car park. C’est la vie….

  34. Brian Spottyteenager permalink
    November 2, 2010 5:26 pm

    mr dyer, so you don’t believe that the poll is correct due to one dodgy poll? do you want me to find some accurate polls to put your mind at rest, if that’s how easy it is to pursuade you?

    It is also fairly obvious why a survey surrounding an election could have strange results, I could list the differences between them here but I don’t think that is necessary.

  35. bobS permalink
    November 2, 2010 7:20 pm

    There is also the fact that ICM/ComRes/whoever could have taken a poll of Ashton Vale residents but chose not to. Instead, they focused on a spread across 6 (six) wards when Ashton Vale makes up perhaps 1/3 of Bedminster ward.

    In any event, this is all irrelevant. All that matters is evidence of Ashton Vale resident’s use of the land. They have established Town Green status according to the law and that should be the end of it.

    It is no surprise that a majority of people in the rest of the city would be quite glad if it was built in someone else’s back yard as that is what the majority of people are like (even though people all over Bristol are currently fighting greenspaces development).

  36. bobS permalink
    November 2, 2010 7:20 pm

    FACT

  37. Tony Dyer permalink
    November 3, 2010 8:17 am

    Easily persuaded? By a single poll?

    When it’s put like that it all looks so silly doesn’t it?

  38. Brian Spottyteenager permalink
    November 3, 2010 12:34 pm

    didnt say that dyer, to not believe any poll due to one poll turning out to be wrong ( though it was during and election where views and opinion change rapidly, what with debates and such, you never know when someones gonna come across a bigot) is ridiculous. why do you not believe the findings? why not commission your own survey and get some facts to back up your claims?

  39. Brian Spottyteenager permalink
    November 3, 2010 12:49 pm

    they have not proved it to be a green, they have convinced one lady, that does not make it a green it’s up to the public rights of way comity to decide based on evidence before them not based purely on one report ( we all know BCC doesn’t always listen to recommendations.) if the rights of way comity have a different view of say what makes up past times and a ” large section” of the community ( most people would not consider the 22 people that told the truth a large number of the public) they are perfectly and legally aloud to turn down village green status. FACT

  40. Richard Lane permalink
    November 3, 2010 5:21 pm

    Tony Dyer
    Funny how you can use a phone survey to back up your claims when you agree with it.
    You did with a retail survey when arguing against a store at Ashton gate.
    Yet when a survey is cxarried out and the results fly in the face of what you want, you dismiss it as having no evidence. But hey, we’re used to that with the record you have.
    No doubt you surveyed the people of Ashton Vale about the village green, then submitted the results you wanted to the inspector.

    Your claim: “BCFC have deliberately produced an headline to mislead their own fanbase, claiming as fact (sorry…FACT) something that they simply don’t have the evidence to back up”. This is simmilar to the one you made about housing to be built in Bristol.
    You claimed there were only 10,000 houses leaft to be built, because 10,000 had already been built and 10,000 already had planning permission, (30,000 were to be built).
    That claim was a total misrepresentation of the truth, you claimed that only 10,000 houses were leaft to be built when the real number was 20,000. You did have the evidence in this case but changed it to suit your argument.
    But hey! we’re used to the quirky little ways you have of twisting things.

    Funny how many times you can say map eh!
    The reason I know it was not a map, is because it was a planning application and I had Previously seen the map (as you call it) and new it was a plan.
    So how many buildings are on the map Tony? I think you’ll find that the buildings on the map of the car park, is it the filling station? So it would still resemble the existing car park.

  41. Richard Lane permalink
    November 3, 2010 5:29 pm

    Brian, if your going to play with these rough boys, be aware that your statements will be twisted. You will also be abused, they will lie, they will exagerate, they will make wild claims, they will wait untill you make a silly lttle mistake and then pounce (akaTD), you will be called names, they will accuse you of being paid, or in bed with SL/CS, they won’t offer any proof of their claims.

  42. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    November 3, 2010 6:16 pm

    Hi Brian. The R of W ctte. do have the power to turn down the application but only if new evidence is placed before them. Any new evidence could of course be challenged by the lawyer acting for the applicants. Out of interest, I sat in on two mornings of the hearing. It was very much like a court of law with both sides able to question the witnesses and none of these got an easy ride when I was there. And it seems to have been forgotten that there were witnesses from both sides and they were all questioned robustly. It is easy to right it off as somebody making a bad judgement, but in the small amount of time I attended, it seemed a pretty thorough and serious exercise.

  43. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    November 3, 2010 6:19 pm

    First line should read “only likely”. Makes alot of difference.

  44. November 3, 2010 7:03 pm

    Ban you if you keep calling people liars-RULES.
    I am the mayor of this worthy and wholesome blog with executive democratic power to evict you back to your OTIB forum-that would be a lonely and sad existence.
    If you have good comment to make – you are most welcome.
    Off-topic abusive rant=Yellow card for Richard, 10 days in the bin to cool down if you transgress again.

    FACT

  45. Richard Lane permalink
    November 3, 2010 7:23 pm

    Sacredspring
    So it’s ok to call me a liar as others on this blog have. One rule for your side and then a little true statement from me and it’s of to the sin bin, or as others would describe it, removal of free speech.
    But there again it is as you say, your blog. So I will try to comply with your rules, even if you decide who and when to apply them to.
    Oh, I forgot to mention. They will threaten to ban you for calling a spade a spade

  46. BobS permalink
    November 3, 2010 8:20 pm

    Brian

    BCC legal advice on this issue is very clear and has been put in writing many times. Having hired the inspector to carry out a legal hearing, they must accept her report unless it is clearly wong or fraudulent.

    Your assertions are simply wishful thinking. The club have lost fair and square. If BCC reject the report then they will be acting unlawfully according to BCCs own legal advice.

  47. Brian Tompson permalink
    November 3, 2010 8:50 pm

    “Very much like a court of law” is not a court of law, and as such with no threat of fine or imprisonment for not telling the truth (she only believed 22 people) there is no reason to stop people lying to effectively steel someone else’s land.

    There are many facts pointing towards this case being effectively a land grab by perverting ancient laws designed to protect historical Town and village greens, why did they only apply when BCFC got planning?

    There is also no need for “new” evidence , If the pub rights of way comity deem the evidence for town green to be flawed, or, the evidence against town green more relevant than the inspector did, then they are perfectly entitled to refuse it. they are not bound to the inspectors recommendation.

    here is a quote from her report “The registration Authority must make its own decision and is in LAW FREE TO follow OR NOT follow my recommendation as it thinks right” .
    this is followed basically by the old “you are not allowed to take into account what the land would be used for if developed” so they do not have to accept the report as fact and can make their own decision based on all evidence (whether within the report or outside it)

  48. Brian Tompson permalink
    November 3, 2010 8:55 pm

    Thats not the case and if so So did BCC act outside of law when they went against inspectors recomendation for sainsburys at ashton Gate??

    re, “Ashton Vale” i’ll post it Again,
    Here is a quote from her report “The registration Authority must make its OWN decision and is in LAW FREE TO FOLLOW OR NOT FOLLOW my RECOMMENDATION AS IT THINKS RIGHT” .

  49. BobS permalink
    November 3, 2010 9:26 pm

    Oh Brian.

    You are confusing a planning inspectors report ( an internal report by a council employee) with a town green inspectors report. I understand that they both use the word report.

    But I am not bothered by your opinions as BCC s legal advice has been put in writing and it contradicts you.

    Also, you clearly did not attend any of the inquiry as you would have seem that the only witnesses who were obviously lying were those brought by the club. You would also have seen the farmer support the applicants case.

  50. Tony Dyer permalink
    November 3, 2010 11:23 pm

    Rich,

    How many people in the survey live in Ashton Vale?

    You don’t know, I don’t know, and unless BCFC have been given information that ITV have not put in the public domain then they don’t know either. Yet the BCFC headline claims that the majority of people surveyed in Ashton Vale voted in a particular way – how do they know that if they don’t know how many of those surveyed are from Ashton Vale? The claim is not backed up by the evidence provided.

    Retail survey – if you actually read my statement to the 21st July planning committee (its on the City Council website) you will find that what I actually pointed out was that all the different phone surveys appear to contradict each other in their estimates of average turnover for an average Sainsbury’s and/or for the estimates of the current turnover of the existing Sainsburys. In addition Sainsbury’s claim that their store is over-trading based on the results of a phone survey in which none of the Sainsbury customers surveyed complained about the store being too busy or congested – this seems contradictory, especially given that those surveyed were prompted for their likes and dislikes about their shopping experience. So, in other words it appears to be a valid conclusion that phone surveys can be unreliable, exactly the same as I am saying here.

    As for the housing figures; First the context, the figures I provided was in response to your claim that there were still 30,000 houses to be built, and your further claim that this meant that there will be another 90,000 people living in Bristol including 30,000 in South Bristol – and you followed that up with the comment “where will they all shop?”. You appear to have neglected to mention that – as you also fail to mention that I provided you with a link to the Office of National Statistics site that showed that average occupancy levels were considerably lower than those you used to calculate your population increase – but you insisted your figures were correct and you would supply a link to prove it. (Have you found the link yet?)

    Second, when I had previously stated that most of the new houses to be built in South Bristol would be further to the east of the proposed site for the new Sainsbury’s and that therefore it was likely that a sizable portion of any additional retail demand would also be to the east and thus the new store’s customers were likely to travel to the store via the Parson Street gyratory and Winterstoke Road you insisted that this was rubbish and that if anything most new traffic would be via the Cumberland Basin as people travelled in from North Somerset and from NW Bristol via the Portway.

    Finally, the housing figures I provided weren’t mine. They were taken from Bristol City Council’s Local Development Framework documentation as I pointed out at the time. I provided the detailed figures regarding how many houses had already been built or were in the process of being built and how many were subject to s.106 completions. I then pointed out that many of the remaining houses, especially in south Bristol were planned to be built in specific areas: namely Knowle West and Hengrove Park. I then provided the number of houses left over from the total figure which had yet had a location specified – in South Bristol this turned out to be a relatively small number.

    You don’t seem to think it odd that if I was trying to claim what you say I claimed that I would provide you with the exact figures that I was trying to misrepresent? The reality is that it is you that is trying to misrepresent what I stated.

    What the detailed housing figures I provided showed was that in south Bristol the vast majority of the houses still to be built would be built in those areas to the east of the store and if the giant Sainsbury’s was intended to meet the demand generated by the new housebuilding in south Bristol that would mean that a sizable portion of the new store’s customer were indeed likely to travel to the store via the already heavily congested Parson Street gyratory and Winterstoke Road. In short rather than help to regenerate the parts of south Bristol that most need regenerating, the store is likely to increase congestion on one of the key transport routes into that part of south Bristol thus helping to make it less attractive for potential employers as well as take revenues out of one of the most deprived areas of south Bristol.

    Kind regards

    Tony

  51. Brian Tompson permalink
    November 3, 2010 11:48 pm

    legal “advice” being the key word. This case is not open-shut as any other case BCC has had to preside over before, hence our little tête-à-tête.

    BCC is under no legal obligation to make any specific decision.

  52. Brian Tompson permalink
    November 3, 2010 11:57 pm

    I drove around for 30 Mins Saturday, trying to find a space in Sainsburys, not very good for the environment, but you know, a man needs to eat, and my veggie growing wasn’t great this year.

    It was also packed when I got in there, and then I found they didnt sell the fridge every other Sainsburys has. 😦 bad times.

  53. November 4, 2010 6:37 pm

    According to my 97.43% accurate survey I’ve been undertaking:
    1. Average 13 tills closed with no staff on them
    2. Queue between 3-5 customers on each of the remaining tills.
    It’s a bit daft really driving around a car park for 30 mins.
    I suggest a nice walk up North St for some fresh organic bread and tins of beans. Eddy’s domestics do a very good fridge, delivered. No stress, sorted, shopping like the old days!

  54. Brian Tompson permalink
    November 4, 2010 7:44 pm

    Cant afford North street grub anymore 😦 plus I wouldn’t get the lovely nectar points and cheap petrol.
    there were (I think) two tills closed on Saturday and it was busy as hell they need more staff, hmmm might apply, anybody know if there is a good staff discount?

  55. Richard Lane permalink
    November 4, 2010 11:00 pm

    Tony Dyer
    Thank you for your kind regards and the duplicated exhaustive post.
    It matters not how often you repeat the same statements in the same post, they still add up to the same incorrect minimal content, I refer of course to the housing figures and traffic movements around the Parson st area, statements.

    1. The claim is made about those people answering the survey in the proximity of Ashton vale, not the majority of people.

    2. The survey I referred to you using as collaborative evidence for your argument was within the DTZ retail report, It was not the Sainsbury phone survey, as you know.
    That report took it’s telephone survey from an area covering Stroud in Gloucestershire, Chippenham in Wiltshire to Street in Somerset. You used this as evidence that shoppers did not want or need a new store in Ashton.
    You say: “So, in other words it appears to be a valid conclusion that phone surveys can be unreliable, exactly the same as I am saying here”.
    So you use a survey oviously nowhere near the area concerned to back up your case, yet dismiss a survey encompassing the actual area concerned, because it doesn’t suit your argument. You have double standards.

    3. You claimed that only 10,000 homes remained to be built. The actual figure was 20,000 to be built.
    For a person that seems to pride himself on precise figures I find that strange. Oh no! it’s that double standards thing again.
    I stated that there “were” (past tense) 30,000 houses to be built from the year 2006. Some had already been built but not 20,000 as you claimed. My figure for occupancy levels came from a site I could no longer find, I admitted this at the time.
    They were not as you described “considerably lower than my figures”
    They resulted in the projected population increase for Bristol being 86,000 instead of my figure of 90,000.
    As there were still 20,000 homes to be built (not 10,000), it would leave a projected population increase of something like 56,000 for Bristol, of which a third (18,000) + are expected to be in south Bristol.
    You say: “Finally, the housing figures I provided weren’t mine. They were taken from Bristol City Council’s Local Development Framework documentation as I pointed out at the time”. Those figures became yours when you used them to try and project a lower population increase and subsequent demand for retail outlets.

    4. As for your claims about people travelling from areas such as Hartcliffe and Whitchurch to the new Sainsbury store, they did not refer at the time to new housing levels, only existing dwellings. Why would they not go to the existing Sainsbury’s already in Ashton and Brislington was what I was saying. Plus the new store would be closer to the major road system making it more attractive and easier to reach for people traversing the cumberland road system from whichever direction, be it north, south, east or west
    You only include that statement now, yet you would also argue that there would be no need for them to travel as you expect a new retail centre to provide for those new houses.

    I look forward to counting the number of duplicated statements you make in an attempt to portray a more detailed informative post.
    Rich

  56. November 4, 2010 11:02 pm

    There’s some good value nosh up North St when you look for it. You spend binfulls more cash in the supermarkets with ‘bogofs’ and 3 for 2’s + nectar and 10p off petrol, what a con-trick! It’s quids in with the local shops-lets hope they don’t get shut down by the greedy monsters.
    Survey would say 99.99% Sat supermarket=trolley rage, avoid like the plague.

  57. Tony Dyer permalink
    November 5, 2010 4:23 pm

    Richard, if you wish to avoid long posts perhaps you should consider reducing the amount of misrepresentation, disinformation and errors of fact you manage to cram into your own posts – that way it wouldn’t take so long to respond?

    Here is the abridged response to your last post;

    1) The BCFC website says “The majority of Bristol – and Ashton Vale – is behind the new stadium, an ITV/ComRes poll has revealed.”

    It does not say “The majority of people surveyed in Bristol – and in the proximity of Ashton Vale – are behind the new stadium, an ITV/ComRes poll has revealed”

    2) I am not a mindreader so when you refer to “a phone survey”, try to be more specific next time as to which one you mean, especially if you are referring to an online conversation that took place back in Jan/Feb 2010.

    For those who have the patience they can read our indeterminable ramblings here;
    http://tinyurl.com/ye6mo6l
    and conclude for themselves who was insisting what about phone surveys.

    They will find you saying that a phone survey “is flawed” and “should be ignored”. And they will find me saying “it findings should be taken in conjunction with other evidence” – in other words that a single phone survey (or poll) on its own may be unreliable as I have stated elsewhere.

    3) I did not claim that only 10,000 houses were left to be built. That is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said and you know it. You have done a similar type of misrepresentation in this very thread.

    My comment that “I provided you with a link to the Office of National Statistics site that showed that average occupancy levels were considerably lower than those you used to calculate your population increase”

    has been misrepresented by you when you say;

    “My figure for occupancy levels came from a site I could no longer find, I admitted this at the time. They were not as you described “considerably lower than my figures”

    It is perfectly obvious that I was not referring to your now untraceable occupancy levels but to the figures provided by the Office of National Statistics; http://tinyurl.com/2wbssb5 which show that currently occupancy levels are around 2.4.

    Bristol City Council recently published (Oct 2010) their figures for population growth between 2006 and 2026. They estimated a population growth of 41,032. That is for the entire city, over the entire 20-year period and was based on delivering 30,226 dwellings. There figures also indicate that the average occupancy levels in Bristol are lower than the national average at 2.3 and are expected to fall to 2.17 by 2026.

    4) Have you actually read the Retail Assessment provided in support of the Sainsbury’s application?

Comments are closed.