Skip to content

Shock news: Evening Toast reports landfill replanted with 3500 trees!

April 18, 2011

Dipstick tabloid gong of the year goes to none other than the Bristol Evening Lost (again)

Nothing wrong with the reporting of a massive landfill only closed two years ago, which is being returned to nature with huge tree and hedgerow planting. Nothing to do with the historic landfill at Ashton Vale either, cos its the Yanley one, a stone’s throw as the crow flies from the Ashton Vale meadows. A scar on the landscape viewable from miles around including North St nr the Hen & Chicken. Great for the neighbours of Yanley, Long Ashton, surrounding villages in North Somerset and Bristol. Soon to be a fantastic wildlife woodland and nature reserve with walkways open to the public.

So question is why does this daily rag print such an obvious good news story about a recently closed landfill tip after years of misreporting of a historic landfill tip? The old landfill at Ashton Vale has been reclaimed by nature for a generation, with ancient flooded meadows and wildlife and wildflowers in abundance. But the sorry bog-roll of propaganda has for years been slagging off the Ashton Vale meadows as a rat-infested swamp, aided and abetted by the new BCFC chair Mr “lets not mince words its a tip” Sexton. No mention of Ashton Vale tip at all this time, funny that.

Hypocrisy gone mad!

If Lansdown, Ned Cussin (King Splurge) or Pontins JT group propose a speedway, McShitburger drive-thru and world class cage-fighting venue at the former landfill tip at Yanley, expect The Evening Lost to jump on the bandwagon of support faster than you can say ‘composting toilet’.  That would tie-in very nicely with a new link rd, 10.000 houses and a designer outlet.

Advertisements
27 Comments
  1. Still Waters permalink
    April 18, 2011 9:14 pm

    Rich says: “things change and evolve and you learn things also over that period of time. Sometimes your wrong”

    That’s enough for me.

  2. Richard Lane permalink
    April 18, 2011 10:07 pm

    Stillwaters

    You forgot the rest of my quote which was: “sometimes people take what you say the wrong way”.

    One thing you learn over time is, how you are misquoted.

  3. Richard Lane permalink
    April 18, 2011 10:13 pm

    Stillwaters say’s: “it’s better to destroy greenbelt land and associated local living standards”
    See how easy it is to present things to look different than reality. Cheap shot really.

  4. Deano permalink
    April 19, 2011 8:54 am

    Except of course, that you have taken a question from Stillwaters and deliberately made it look like a statement by him whereas the quote taken from your ramblings was both a statement when you made it and reproduced as a statement when Stillwaters quoted it.

    You really are the most deceitful and dishonest individual I have ever seen posting online.

    Here is another example of your dishonesty;

    “Once I saw the cow pats I changed my statements about cows grazing on that particular field.”

    Liar, even after you had visited the field with its cow pats (despite your fears that you were “trespassing”), you continued to claim that no cows had grazed there. You only changed your tune after other City fans on OTIB suggested that if the club could prove that the fields had had a commercial use (like farming) that this would undermine the Town Green application.

    “Once I knew the car park would no longer be totally car park I changed my statement to read: predominantly used for vehicles.”

    Liar, even after the Tesco application had been submitted clearly showing that the car park would no longer remain a car park you were still commenting on the Bristol Blogger site that the former car park would remain a car park.

    “Once I new the two sites were simmilar in size, I changed my statements to read: able to build a larger structure because of the current buildings on the site, making it much larger in it’s capacity for development.”

    Liar, when Tony Dyer “enlightened” you on his blog that the two sites were similar in size, you responded; “The existing sainsbury site is considerably smaller than the Ashton gate site, even if you say it isn’t” Even when he provided a link to Sainsburys own diagrams showing that the sites were of similar size, you still denied it. Even when you were provided with the relative sizes of the two sites showing that both sites were about 4 hectares, you continued to deny it. Finally when it was explained to you that you had double-counted the car park site in the AG figures and that the club itself had described the AG site as being 9.56 acres making both sites similar is size, what was your response?

    “Unfortunately I have so far been unable to find exact site figures for Ashton Gate and the present Sainsbury’s site. The planning application for Tesco’s is no longer available online.”

    Lane the lying swain.

  5. April 19, 2011 9:25 am

    Pork pies from the BCFC directors filter down unchallenged by fans or daily rag.
    All the bull about no cows on Ashton Vale meadows gets repeated by Lane etc till they think its fact.
    I suppose he’d now claim that the Ashton vale town green is dangerous due to hazards of tripping over dried-up cow pats!

  6. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    April 19, 2011 10:03 am

    Sacredspring. You missed one coincidence in the story and the picture. I’ll give you a clue. Farmer, grazing cows, site at Ashton Vale. Do you get it now?

  7. April 19, 2011 9:55 pm

    Yes excellent point. There is a good tale there somewhere.

  8. Paul Browning permalink
    April 20, 2011 8:01 am

    Funny how all the usual commenters on the Evening Post website who are usually so keen to express their views about the potential for former landfill sites to become valued green space are notable by their absence.

    If I remember correctly, Bristol City FC planned to scoop out all the landfill at Ashton Vale in order to create a bowl for the lower level of seating. Does anybody know what they were planning to do with the landfill waste once they’d dug it out? Did Bristol City council ask? Did Bristol City Council even care?

  9. Richard Lane permalink
    April 20, 2011 9:08 pm

    Deano

    Your statement about me: “Liar, even after you had visited the field with its cow pats (despite your fears that you were “trespassing”), you continued to claim that no cows had grazed there” How did you know there were cow pats in the field when I visited? Answer= Because I stated it. So I could not state there were cow pats when I visited and at the same time deny their existence. The rest of that paragraph is also a complete speculative fabrication of reality. I have never exploited the situation of cows grazing on that field being a commercial use, or the effect it could have on the TVG application, thanks for pointing that out though.

    Your next statement: “Liar, even after the Tesco application had been submitted clearly showing that the car park would no longer remain a car park you were still commenting on the Bristol Blogger site that the former car park would remain a car park”.
    I have stated before that plans I saw, had parking on the existing car park. I did not download those plans and was under the impression they had not changed, that is until much later when I was corrected. I duly changed my statement to say “predominantly used for vehicles”. That is not lying.
    I don’t remember posting on the Bristol blogger site, I may have. If it transpires that I did, no doubt you’ll claim I have been lying again.

    As for the two sites, I stood by my statement, until it was proven that they were in fact simmilar in size. I’m not going to change my mind just because someone says so, I needed proof. I saw that the Sainsbury site was smaller than the Ashton Gate site, becasue I did not include the UBM access road and the extra road frontage to Winterstoke road, I only included the store it’s car park and filling station, which were the only developable parts of the site, as I saw it. This has now changed to include the video rental shop and some road frontage. In that respect the site is smaller than the site at AG. Believe it or not, I asked about the site sizes but received no answer and the moment was lost. It’s only later when the subject is raised elsewhere, that you return to the subject with different information.

    You have consistently taken statements from different posts, made at different times. You have claimed that I have lied, because I have been mistaken and you have invented scenarios with odd posts I might have made on OTIB.
    At no point have you provided a single shred of evidence to back up your claims of lying. It is pure conjecture, which seems to have been clouded by rage. It appears that you make things up to try and prove a point, which is subsequently proven to be completely fabricated and makes no sense, such as your referrence to cow pats.

    You don’t have the intelligence to differentiate between an example of misquoting and misrepresention, or how easy it is to do so.

    You call me a liar about rubbish in the stream at Ashton vale, then when offered the chance to meet and prove me wrong by inspecting the stream, you fail to respond to the invitation, obviously because you know your’e lying.

    You are making statements about three specific points which over a period of time have been discussions between myself and others, which you have not participated in with any meaningful content, merely attacks on the poster, which only go to prove that you have nothing constructive to say, they sound like the rantings of a deranged lunatic.

  10. Richard Lane permalink
    April 20, 2011 9:33 pm

    Sacredspring

    Pork pies! Are they like the tree lined sleepy suburban streets of Ashton?
    Or the millions of extra vehicle movements to Sainsbury’s, or the constant claims of people dying of either exhaust fumes or being knocked down, or that it’s all about profit for Lansdown, or with ancient flooded meadows and wildlife and wildflowers in abundance. Ancient?

    You are saying, that if something is said enough times it becomes believable, that is certainly the case with you and your beliefs. Ion the other hand, have changed my mind on certain things over a period of time. I have also acknowledged that there are some downsides to these developments and people will lose where others may gain. You on the other hand have consistently blurted out the same monster rubbish, even when knowing you are completely wrong. You don’t have the guts to admit your wrong on anything and so continue in your brainwashing of poor souls like Deano and HarryT with your rubbish. Sleepy suburb?

    Could possibly be that there are no links between the two sites that need reporting, as there is a rather large railway embankment seperating the sites at their closest proximity to each other.

  11. Richard Lane permalink
    April 20, 2011 9:42 pm

    Paul Browning

    What proposals should people comment about for this former landfill site? There are no specific plans so why comment?

    As for the waste from the former tip, they plan to dig another hole and bury it.

  12. Deano permalink
    April 20, 2011 10:05 pm

    The only person who has been brainwashed on this site is Lane the lying swain. Why the hell would I want to meet you? I have heard and seen enough of you that I have no wish to come into contact with such an odious individual who has consistently lied, insulted both individuals and groups of individuals and has demonstrated a level of hypocrisy that is beyond belief!

    “How did you know there were cow pats in the field when I visited? Answer= Because I stated it. So I could not state there were cow pats when I visited and at the same time deny their existence.”

    Yet, despite those cow pats being there when you visited, you continued to deny that cows grazed the field until much later.

    “I have never exploited the situation of cows grazing on that field being a commercial use, or the effect it could have on the TVG application, thanks for pointing that out though.”

    Pointing what out? What? You mean you hadn’t known that some of your fellow City fans had said that commercial use of the field (i.e grazing of cows) might have an effect on the TVG application? And you are thankful to me for pointing it out? You really are a very ignorant individual aren’t you.

    Congratulations, long after the Town Green Report has been published you have just made it perfectly clear to everybody else that you have not even bothered to read the report whose recommendation you have so often criticised.

    “I have stated before that plans I saw, had parking on the existing car park. I did not download those plans and was under the impression they had not changed”

    In other words, despite constantly commenting on the BERATE site about the merits of the supermarket, you are now admitting that you had not bothered to look at the plans that had actually been submitted for the Tesco? This is getting better and better!

    “Believe it or not, I asked about the site sizes but received no answer and the moment was lost”

    Who did you ask, was it the same “very important person” that you said had “conducted an investigation” into the brick throwing incidents and found “no evidence”. The person whose name you are not prepared to give – almost certainly because if he was contacted he would probably have no idea what you are talking about?

    As has been stated before;

    “Why are you bothering with responding to my comments?

    I think it’s because they ring true”

  13. Richard Lane permalink
    April 21, 2011 10:23 pm

    Deano

    You say: “Yet, despite those cow pats being there when you visited, you continued to deny that cows grazed the field until much later”.
    So after making this claim, I challenge you to prove your lies. It should be easy for you, as you obviously have the information to hand, or you wouldn’t be able to make this claim. The truth is, you have absolutely no Idea when I visited the site or if there were cow pats or weren’t cow pats when I did.
    To make it easy for you, the first time I set foot on the site of the new stadium there were no cow pats to be seen, the second time I saw no cow pats, the third time I did see cow pats, more recently there were no cow pats. Now the questions raised are, when did I visit the site and when did I admit there were cow pats on the site? You know please enlighten us.

    Regarding the commercial use of that land (grazing cows). Your lack of inteligence, or blind rage, means that you fail to differentiate between a tongue in cheek slightly sarcastic comment and a reference to fact. I do not need to concern myself with proving commercial use of that land over the 20 year period, the farmers own evidence and the fact that there is a farmer are proof of that. For your information, I have read the report, some I remember but most was painfully boring and I would need to access it for anything specific. I’m quite annoyed actually because I inadvertantly deleted a whole library of information on my favourites bar, which contained reports, plans and links to other websites.

    You say: ” you are now admitting that you had not bothered to look at the plans that had actually been submitted for the Tesco? This is getting better and better!”
    No. You know I did not say that. I actually said that the plans I saw had parking on them, whether that was as existing or proposed I cannot remember and cannot access them to check. You choose to lie and say I said something different.
    During my discussions with people about the Tesco plans on the Berate site, there was very little discussion if any, about the car parking and definately no discussion about the layout, so there was no reason to consult the plans.
    It was only when claims were made that the land was being given away, that these debates about the car park land began. And as I remember those claims were made after the Sainsbury’s plans were submitted.

    The reason I reply to your comments is to correct your inaccuracies and prove your claims are wrong.
    You have no Idea when I visited the site, so made it up to confirm your claims.
    You have no idea what I have and have not read, so make assumptions.
    You have no idea who I have had contact with at the club or from Sainsbury’s, so make assumptions.
    You have the perfect opportunity to actually prove your claims about me lying, yet decline the chance to do so. This only proves that, I am correct and you are in fact the liar.
    Once more you have chosen to avoid proving your claims, you have instead carried out another expected attack on the poster, in an attempt to hide the fact that you have no evidence to back up your wild offensive claims.

    Here’s another vile claim of yours: “I have heard and seen enough of you that I have no wish to come into contact with such an odious individual who has consistently lied, insulted both individuals and groups of individuals and has demonstrated a level of hypocrisy that is beyond belief!”
    When have you ever seen me, or come into contact with me?
    When have I ever offended an individual, without first being offended or verbally abused?
    When and how have I ever offended a group of people?
    When have I been hypocritical?
    Now without making things up, prove these claims.

    I honestly think that you have been mistaken in your assessment of me as an individual and have let your heart rule your head. You have consistently been looking for things to discredit me with, and it would appear you have been hasty in forming your conclusions.
    You have never been constructive in discussions, instead relying on attacks of the person in a vain attempt to gain an advantage.

    I repeat. A lie is where you knowingly say something (written or verbally) which you know is not true. I have never lied in these debates. I have, as I’ve admitted, been mistaken and changed my statements because of that mistake, but I have not lied.
    I have remained constant in my statements and thoughts, with no hypocricy. You may mistake a change of opinion or mind as hypocricy. I suppose we are all guilty of saying one thing and doing another at some point in our lives.

    Hypocricy, an example:- accusing one person of being offensive or abusive whilst being the main perpetrator of abusive and offensive comments from the outset.

  14. Richard Lane permalink
    April 22, 2011 1:19 am

    Deano

    The more I’ve thought about this, the clearer it has become, though you’ll probably accuse me of backtracking. When subjected to a relentless onslought of accusations from you as I have, my answers have been hurried in an attempt to prove you wrong.

    My only mistake when talking about the car park at Ashton gate was my terminology.
    As I’ve said before, this parcel of land was not discussed until the claims of dodgy land deals were made and exagerated valuations were put on the land by opponents to the scheme, there was no need to study plans of this area beforehand, so I didn’t. I argued that as the land was not being used for the actual building of the supermarket, then it’s value was that of it’s existing use, a car park. I also argued that as the club owned the lease on that land (some 80plus years)then the council would receive more in extra rates revenue from the larger store than from the rental income of the lease. It was only later in those debates that someone gained a political point, by informing me that the car park would actually be used for a filling station and access roads to the store and service yard and would not as I was saying remain a car park, it was Probably Tony Dyer. At that point I acknowledged my mistake and changed my statements to read, predominantly used for vehicles, so would still not hold the same value as land being used for the supermarket building.

    You have tried to exploit this mistake in terminology by claiming it as a lie. You have mixed up the timing of comments yet again and you are wrong in your accusations.

  15. Richard Lane permalink
    April 22, 2011 2:37 am

    Sacredspring

    The reason it’s not reported by the EP like the AV site is, because there’s no development planned that will benefit Bristol.
    The EP has not been misreporting about Ashton vale meadows, as you now like to call them. They have been reporting about the development of a new stadium on the site of a former tip within the boundaries of Bristol. Nobody denies the existence of nice fields to the south of the stadium site. I don’t ever recall them referring to it as rat infested, maybe a few over enthusiastic supporters have used this term but not the EP to my reccolection.

    The field where the stadium is planned, is a mess. People claim that’s only since contractors dug it up. If you go onto google earth, you can see historical images of this field. They show the same rough tumps and scrubland where plant life struggles to grow because of the lack of topsoil. that are evident now. All sorts of items break the surface and stop plant growth, and is shown in the images to be historically the same as when the tip closed, I assume any topsoil was washed from the surface into the crevices below.
    There’s no mention of Ashton vale tip, because the story is not about Ashton vale, obvious really, why the question?

  16. Mr Craig Shortwood permalink
    April 22, 2011 8:42 am

    This is the people you’re dealing with… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEbdMUoyQ4U

    No brainers. Simples.

  17. Mr Craig Shortwood's other brain cell permalink
    April 22, 2011 11:56 am

    Craig,

    Are you sure it’s not these people?

    You are the brainless one.

  18. Deano permalink
    April 22, 2011 12:16 pm

    Lane the lying swain says at 10:23pm;
    ” I do not need to concern myself with proving commercial use of that land over the 20 year period, the farmers own evidence and the fact that there is a farmer are proof of that.”

    The farmer’s evidence was that he had commercially farmed the land as grazing and for the gathering a grass crop.

    Lane the lying swain says at 2:37am (!);
    “The field where the stadium is planned, is a mess. People claim that’s only since contractors dug it up. If you go onto google earth, you can see historical images of this field. They show the same rough tumps and scrubland where plant life struggles to grow because of the lack of topsoil. that are evident now. All sorts of items break the surface and stop plant growth, and is shown in the images to be historically the same as when the tip closed, I assume any topsoil was washed from the surface into the crevices below.”

    So having said that the farmer’s own evidence is proof of the commercial use of the field, and presumably being aware (because he says he read the report) that “commercial use” including the growing of a grass crop, Lane then claims only hours later that the same land “is a mess”, “where plant life struggle to grow because of the lack of topsoil” and “All sorts of items break the surface and stop plant growth”

    So what was Lane’s definition of a liar again?

    “I repeat. A lie is where you knowingly say something (written or verbally) which you know is not true.”

    By his own admission, Lane says he has read the Town Green report and that the farmers evidence was proof of commer

  19. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    April 22, 2011 4:43 pm

    If it helps: about a decade ago there were plans to build about 300 homes on the site at Ashton Vale. One of the main objectors was the farmer who grazed their cattle there. The houses were obviously never built. I know nothing of the details because I was not involved although I know the Green Belt was an issue and, at that time, my interest was in other things.

  20. April 23, 2011 12:45 am

    Craig Shortwood-wots Tesco riot got to do with planting trees on Yanley tip?
    Sounds like dimbo Evening Psot imposter trying to do a Mike Ford again.

    Idiot.
    Any more crap like that and

    instant ban

  21. Mr Craig Shortwood permalink
    April 23, 2011 6:35 am

    Because you’re a sympathiser with these scumbags.

    BANNED

  22. April 23, 2011 7:41 am

    BANNED

  23. Richard Lane permalink
    April 23, 2011 8:23 pm

    Deano

    There you go again, mixing up quotes about different things in a futile attempt at discrediting me. You even use a tactic of Tony’s, where you print totally irrellivent facts
    such as (time of posting), as a way of giving yourself some credibility, but the content is still utter rubbish beefed up with my quotes. It would appear that you have dug yourself into a large hole and will do anything, other than producing a single shred of evidence to back up your claims.

    Let’s get this straight, I referred to the commercial use of the land as a whole, not as you imply, the field. I referred to the field as a mess, not the land as a whole.
    You are wriggling and it’s painful to read.

    Do us all a favour, answer the questions I set you by proving your claims (you’ve had plenty of opportunities now) or shut up.

  24. Richard Lane permalink
    April 23, 2011 8:26 pm

    Sacredspring

    Have you banned yourself?

  25. Deano permalink
    April 24, 2011 3:14 pm

    Lane

    You are hilarious, accusing others of the very same thing you are attempting to do. The only one wriggling is you!

    And now everyone can see it! You are a laughing stock!

    The farmers evidence was that field one (the field where the stadium is proposed to be built) was the field most used to plant a grass crop and to graze cows. I know this because I attended the public hearing when the witnesses gave evidence – unlike you, who didn’t turn up for a single day of the inquiry despite proclaiming himself some sort of expert on the Ashton Vale Town Green application.

    This is the same field that you claimed there was no plant growth because of the landfill. What were the cows grazing? Scotch mist! How was the grass growing if there was no plant growth? How did the cow pats, that you yourself said you have seen in field one, get there? Did they magically fly into the field on their own accord!!!!!

    You sir, are a prize idiot. Congratulations, you have consistently proven yourself a liar, a hypocrite and now a prize idiot.

  26. Tony Dyer permalink
    April 25, 2011 8:18 am

    “At that point I acknowledged my mistake and changed my statements to read, predominantly used for vehicles, so would still not hold the same value as land being used for the supermarket building”

    Rich, can you explain clearly what you mean by this? You appear to be suggesting that the value of the land at Ashton Gate site apparently depends on whether it will actually have the supermarket building itself built upon it as opposed to being used for car parking or a petrol filling station, etc, etc.

    This is such nonsense that I am sure I must have misunderstood what you mean, so would appreciate it if you clarify what you are saying.

    Just to remind you that the land has been valued at £21.3m as retail – and that was the same value used for both the Tesco and Sainsburys applications.

  27. Richard Lane permalink
    April 25, 2011 10:32 am

    Deano

    So no answers to any questions, still not one shred of evidence to back up your wild claims.
    Instead we have the usual twisting of anything said and presented to seem different from reality, yet still obviously fabricated.
    You say: “The farmers evidence was that field one (the field where the stadium is proposed to be built) was the field most used to plant a grass crop and to graze cows”.
    You have ommitted the part about gathering the crop, which you implied took place but knew it couldn’t because of the uneven surface, that’s why only grazing happens/happened on that field.

    You say: “This is the same field that you claimed there was no plant growth because of the landfill”.
    No I didn’t. I said: ” They show the same rough tumps and scrubland where plant life struggles to grow because of the lack of topsoil”. I was referring to certain areas of that field, though you have again tried to claim I said something different from the truth.

    You last sentence confirms your frustrations at not being able to prove a solitary claim of yours, so you revert to name calling, like a child.

Comments are closed.