Skip to content

Sold out

March 2, 2011
Adored by his followers

Adored by his followers

Advertisements
12 Comments
  1. March 3, 2011 7:52 am

    Anyone smell stitch-up?

  2. harryT permalink
    March 3, 2011 8:10 am

    As soon as the 4 officers who voted against last time werre removed whilst the 2 who voted in favour remained …

    As soon as the council and media dutifully reported this as a “freshening up” of the committee …

    So. How long until the Judicial Review of lasts nights decision starts ?

  3. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    March 3, 2011 9:18 am

    Harry. they were not removed. I know 2 withdrew, I don’t know the others reasons. The person whose part has been forgotten is the Political Editor of the Evening Post. He knows lots!

  4. Country Cousin permalink
    March 3, 2011 10:44 am

    Well, tempting as it is to give in gracefully, there is another important stage with this one, and thats the examination by Secretary of State & planning inspectorate. Although the chances of Mr Pickles going against this are much slimmer then he is, he will have to take advice from his officials.

    A mass step down from the planning committee is a highly unusual step to take (I’m tempted to say cowardly), but in itself, has little to do with the planning decision. Of much more concern is the weight given to the store as enabling development. It appears that this swung it, and whilst this too could be legitimate, it will be carefully examined by the inspectorate who will be keen to avoid judicial review.

    I agree Paul that the political pressure due to the role of the press in the city could also play a part in this. In planning parliance, the wording to use in a letter would be that it was impossible for the councillors to make a “considered determination”, so for example, ” The applicant asked for the retail development to be considered as enabling development for the provision of a new Football Stadium. An independent assessment of the retail impact undertaken on behalf of the council found that the scale of this development would have an adverse economic impact on neighbouring local retail centres. Taking both of these into account, planning officers recommended that the enabling development element should be given little weight and recommended that the applicaiton be refused. However, due to the political pressure created by the leading newspaper in the city, using public relations material provided by the applicant on many occasions, and due to the unconditional political support provided by senior politicians in the city for the stadium (and therefore by inference for the retail development) I do not believe it was possible for the planning committee to reach a considered determination on planning grounds alone. I therefore request that the application be called in for further consideration by the SoS…..”

  5. Deano permalink
    March 3, 2011 11:08 am

    Only two of the councillors wanted to step down.

    The other three were “persuaded” that they wanted to step down by the Party Whip. One of them has been complaining about it privately but being a good party member will not say anything publicly.

    What is a Party Whip?

    A whip is an official in a political party whose primary purpose is to ensure party discipline in a legislature. Whips are party ‘enforcers’, who typically offer inducements and threaten punishments for party members to ensure that they vote according to the official party policy

  6. thebristolblogger permalink
    March 3, 2011 8:01 pm

    How can anyone believe that decision is not bent?

    And WTF are members doing “withdrawing” from a committee they’ve agreed to sit on?

    And WTF is a whip doing interfering in the workings of a statutory non-political committee?

    And have any of the members of that committee who were forced to stand down got the balls to resign the whip on the basis this is not what they got into politics to do.

    I’ve seen it all in this city now. It’s a corrupt, parochial shithouse.

  7. March 3, 2011 9:48 pm

    The discussion by councillors didn’t have any significance or add anything to the debate. It was lightweight and hollow ; a done-deal in advance predictable when the panel was ‘re-arranged’.
    At least the last application meeting had some quality debate and insistent questions from councillors who probed into figures.
    The residents end up getting dumped upon from a great height by the money-men hiding behind a mob. No one cares about a scout hut full of kids when the big spenders are flown in : the online poker magnate and former McAlpine executive from Brighton along with our very own stockmarket gambler and tax-exile. Their voice was more important than the voice of the local shopkeeper or local resident.

    The Big Society of gamblers, highrollers and mobsters.

  8. March 4, 2011 7:16 am

    Had a look at that den of depravity and mindless muppets that is the OTIB board. Just to catch up on the bragging etc. Seems like all that the single-celled knuckle draggers remember from the debate is beep beep beep beep. I can see how the rest of the stuff passed over heads-especially the endless line of sleep inducing cloned suits the pro brigade rolled in.
    Good job the anti-lot had some characters like the cult figure BEEP BEEP and Charlie with his passionate whirlwind impression to liven up the depressing superstore stitch-up.

  9. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    March 6, 2011 1:23 pm

    Country Cousin.
    Not exactly what I meant. You overestimate my knowledge and depth of thought. The Evening Post said the Ctte. members would have no preconceived view and make their decision on the evidence. I would like to ask Graham Onions if he had approached any of the members who stood down, prior to them standing down. He may have, he may not have, but if he did then why if they would have no preconceived views. Just trying to work out why all the stories are not consistant!

  10. Richard Lane permalink
    March 7, 2011 10:41 pm

    Paul
    I believe the councillors make a statement (required by law), to say they have no preconcieved views on the application.
    Whether they do or don’t is speculation. If they read the information prior to the meeting, they are bound to have started to form a view, if not completed that process. But that view can always be changed during the meeting.
    Did you mean Ian Onions?

  11. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    March 8, 2011 12:35 pm

    Hi Rich
    Who is Graham Onions?

  12. harryT permalink
    March 8, 2011 2:32 pm

    Fast medium seam bowler for Durham and England. Played a signficant role in the Ashes victory when last in England but had his opportunities limited in recent years by recurrant injury.

    Not sure how he is at relentless pro-corporate propoganda

Comments are closed.