Skip to content

Peter Abraham’s premature adjudication

June 11, 2011

The PROW committee meets next Thursday to decide on the Ashton Vale Town Green.  Peter Abraham, chair of the  committee has already stated:

Mr Abraham – …….– believes the ongoing uncertainty on the future of the site (Ashton Vale TVG) has done Bristol no favours.

He said: “We’ve mucked about and it’s dragging on. We ought to take the decision now. A report should be brought for decision whether to accept or reject the independent inspector’s advice.

“We’ve wasted months and months, with arbitration and talks breaking down.

“Sainsbury’s is ready, the deal is there waiting but we as a council are not shown to be facing up to these issues.

“My personal view is that I am convinced we should reject the inspector’s advice.

“I don’t think this qualifies as a town green and it brings the process into disrepute.”

This was on May4th as reported by the Evening Lost.

What’s the point in having the committee decide on the Town Green recommendation when Peter Abraham has already become the judge, jury and executioner?

May as well stay at home with a nice cup of tea. He has rendered the meeting a farce.

That and Orm-android taking over the legal tasks from the specialist legal team that gets paid a stack of money to advise on exactly these issues. Poor old Mcnamara gets ditched by the boss who obviously has more experience in such stitch-ups.

***STOCKWOOD PETE ON AVTG:***

***BRISTOL INDYMEDIA ON AVTG***

Advertisements
39 Comments
  1. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    June 12, 2011 11:54 am

    You imply that Mr. Abraham is stupid. I’m sure he is not. He must be aware of the response to such a statement and has his own agenda. Regarding Jan O. and her statement that the Registering Officer is satisfied that the southern part of the site should be registered as a TG, surely good news, if for no other reason than it shuts up those who claim it never was a TG.

  2. Tony Dyer permalink
    June 12, 2011 4:05 pm

    Hi Paul,

    Yes, looking at the report it does seem that the council has accepted that the residents have shown that the southern part of the site does indeed meet the criteria for being registered as a Town Green. So, at the very least, this part of the site will probably be registered as such.

    I guess the question that is on most people’s mind is what will happen with the northern part of the site (including the BRT route). This is where the stadium itself is to be built and also includes the former landfill site.

    It will interesting to listen to the debate during the PROWG on Thursday and see how the councillors involved come to a decision on that part of the site.

  3. June 12, 2011 5:56 pm

    See here for article debunking the fixed-up agenda.

    TVG Evidence Withheld From Council Committee Leaked
    (Oh dear, the Evening Lost seem to have pulled this excellent expose of the wheeler-dealing. Looks like they’re continuing their misinformation mantra.)

    This is the recommendation by the presenting officer (Jan Ormondroyd, Chief Executive).

    Here’s some juicy segments from the agenda….

    The delegated responsible officer has reviewed the Inspector’s report, and the new evidence that has been submitted by both the applicants and the landowners. It is his view that the new evidence shows that the applicants have shown, on the balance of probabilities, that the requisite statutory test has been met only for part of the application area, and is therefore recommending partial registration as described in the report.

    http://www.bristol.gov.uk/committee/2011/wa/wa005/0616_10.pdf

    Also:

    Consultation
    1. Internal This report has been prepared in consultation with the Registration Authority’s responsible delegated officer (Strategic Director, Corporate Services); the Head of Legal Services; and the Service Director, Major Projects.
    2. External An Independent Inspector was commissioned to conduct an Inquiry into this application in May/June 2010. The role of the Inspector was to review the application for Town & Village Green status, receive evidence from both the parties and make a recommendation to the Council.

    And:

    The Inspector’s Report is dated 26th August 2010 and recommends that the application be granted and the application land registered as a town green. Following the Inspector’s Report both the objector and the applicant were given the opportunity to consider and comment on the Report which resulted in the Objector submitting further evidence not made available to the inquiry, as well as the Applicant making further submissions.
    There is no statutory requirement that this new information/submissions must be referred back to the Inspector. If the
    Registration Authority is satisfied that it can reach a fair decision without a referral back then that would be a lawful decision. The Inspector’s Report is a report solely on the evidence which she considered. Therefore, whilst its conclusions may well have been well founded on the evidence before her, there is significant new evidence which must be considered

    Even more….

    Recommendation
    12. The delegated responsible officer has considered both the Inspector’s report, dated 26th August 2010, alongside the further evidence submitted by both the applicants and the landowners.
    13. The responsible officer has reviewed the Inspector’s report, and the new evidence that has been submitted by both the applicants and the landowners. It is his view that the new evidence shows that the applicants have shown, on the balance of probabilities, that the requisite statutory test has been met only for part of the application area, and is therefore recommending partial registration as described below.

    So the unnamed resposible officer whoever that may be has chosen to overide the exhaustive enquiry last year by the top QC appointed by the council. This Rumpole-like officer must have extensive legal training to be confident in his assertions. Ho Ho Ho, I believe in Santa Claus as well.

    Good old Macnamara although unceromoniously dumped from the case by the boss has managed to stick a confusing legal-speak oar into the creek:

    The New Evidence
    The new evidence comprises a bundle of documents from the objector and from the applicant. This evidence is summarised in the appendices. There is no statutory requirement that a Committee reads this documentation, and there is no statutory requirement that it hears from the witnesses who have submitted statements. The Committee must come to a view on the basis of the evidence and it is lawful for it to consider the views of the delegated officer (Strategic Director, Corporate Services) and to reach a view on his summary and consideration of the evidence
    Stephen McNamara, Head of Legal Services

    Whats going on?
    I hear the sound of a certain amount of obfuscation in readiness for a whitewash.
    Surely not?

  4. Richard Lane permalink
    June 12, 2011 8:30 pm

    All
    As a point of discussion. If as is suggested, only a part of the land meets the requirements for being registered as a TVG, yet the other land (former tip) has not met that criteria. It would seem that the application as a whole, has not met the requirements for a TVG and therefore should not be ratified.

  5. thebristolblogger permalink
    June 12, 2011 8:44 pm

    I’m not sure McNamara has been dumped. The authorship status of the report is bizarre. It’s written by Jan Ormondroyd expressing the view of the ‘delegated responsible officer’ (who is actually Will Godfrey, their chief bean counter) and has McNamara chipping in.

    Anyone would think they know it’s a load of complete bollocks that won’t last in court and have set the report up in such a way that it will be very difficult to apportion blame to anyone when the legal bills start arriving.

    BTW I love this from McBananas:

    The new evidence comprises a bundle of documents from the objector and from the applicant … There is no statutory requirement that a Committee reads this documentation

    The Committee must come to a view on the basis of the evidence

    There may be no statutory requirement for the Committee to read the evidence but there is a commonsense one.

    How can anyone come to a view without considering the evidence? That’ll go down a storm with the judge:

    JUDGE: So how did you reach your decision?

    COUNCIL: By not reading the evidence your honour. Some looney with an Irish name told us it wasn’t a statutory requirement so we didn’t bother.

  6. Richard Lane permalink
    June 12, 2011 9:16 pm

    Bill

    You state that McNamara says “There is no statutory requirement that a Committee reads this documentation”. That doesn’t mean that they won’t read it, it means to me that, they can take the advice of someone that has read it, which it appears is going to happen.

    People on here and elsewhere are ridiculing the input of so called untrained officers presenting the evidence or advising others. Those same people would then seem to be happy for a committee of councillors, also untrained in law, to make the decision that other so called untrained people should not be commenting on.
    As with all council committees, they will make a reasoned decision with the evidence presented before them. Which would appear to be, Some of the land meets the criteria, some of it doesn’t, an inspector reccomends it for approval on the evidence presented to her, since then more evidence has come to light and was then presented by the landowners, the applicants said it wasn’t fair, the council think only part should be registered, another leak has come from within the council (with nothing of any significance) trying to shit stir again, and the applicants were unwilling to compromise, because they don’t want the stadium more than they do want a TVG.

  7. Still Waters permalink
    June 12, 2011 10:26 pm

    “Those same people would then seem to be happy for a committee of councillors, also untrained in law, to make the decision that other so called untrained people should not be commenting on.”

    Actually, they have to undergo specific training before sitting on the committee, because PROW&G isn’t democratic, it deals with legal issues (the clue’s in the title – ‘Rights’).

    But hey, keep spouting the usual..

  8. thebristolblogger permalink
    June 12, 2011 10:36 pm

    That doesn’t mean that they won’t read it

    It does because they haven’t been given the evidence to read.

  9. Richard Lane permalink
    June 12, 2011 11:06 pm

    Stillwaters

    As usual you have got my statement completely wrong, I don’t know whether that was intentional and your usual deviousness or a genuine mistake. I said they were untrained, meaning as lawyers specifically, I know they are trained for their duties on that committee. I’ve had this conversation on this site before and would not forget such a point. I wonder if Mr Abrahams with his knowledge and training in these matters has formed his opinion because of that very training.
    I believe their training regarding the law, will be more to do with what they can and can’t do legally, as opposed to specific training regarding the law on TVG applications and the relevent criteria required, they are not after all, barristers. I expect they will be advised/ reminded of the laws during the meeting.
    It’s funny really how you lot decry the qualities of professional people at will, yet at the same time appear to consider yourselves as complete experts in the law.

    Bill
    How do you know they won’t be given that evidence? Or indeed ask for it, that’s if it’s at all relevent.

  10. June 13, 2011 7:24 am

    Mr Lane is also suffering from premature adjudication on the town green.
    The agenda should read quite simply:
    1. Accept the Crail TVG recommendation for the whole site.
    2. Don’t accept the TVG recommendation.

    This is what should have happened directly after the end of the exhaustive enquiry last year, simple.
    Instead of which there’s been constant delaying tactics from the club with the council bending over backwards to accommodate every new..er… evidence or mediation delay Lansdowns crew could rustle up. End result is enough fudge to open up a sweet shop.
    The new evidence won’t be read, witnesses wont be called, and Will Godfrey, the council bean doobie, makes a mockery of the expensive proper enquiry last year which gets binned.

  11. BobS permalink
    June 13, 2011 9:05 am

    Richard

    My own view is that both BCFC and BCC could have got the compormise they wanted by mediation or even by the PROW process if they had not insisted upon basing their decision on the Applicants being liers.

    The situation is that the Applicants can either accept the compromise and therefore accept the accusation that they are lying. Or, then can Judicially Review the decision to clear their names and maintain their reputations.

    It was this insistance of the Applicants admitting that the northern part of the land was not used that caused the mediation breakdown. BCC are now using the same false evidence for the PROW.

    Richard – If BCFC had behaved in a neighbourly fashion from the outset (rather than literally introducing themselves with a bulldozer ripping out hedgrerows) this could have all been sorted amicably a long time ago.

    Instead it has set about attacking the locals at every available opportunity directly, through the BEP and through its fans. The latter too often using interent threats, nasty letters, bricks and nails. Not the approach to make anyone back down.

  12. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    June 13, 2011 10:39 am

    I agree with Bobs. From my reading of the situation, if the club had come up with a new community facility and play area for the kids, and done something for those most badly affected, the stadium would have been half built by now. But funny how arrogance often gets peoples backs up and leads them to achieve what they didn’t believe in their wildest dreams they could. As someone who quite liked the idea of a new stadium for what will always be my football club, I still don’t like seeing people shit on, and shit on they were. If I had lived at Aston Vale, I know which side I would have been forced to support. And to Sacredspring. Bit slow today. No comment about your favourite co. Hargreaves Lansdown.

  13. June 13, 2011 4:01 pm

    Hargreaves who? Are they on the fiddle again?
    Check out Bristol Indymedia:EXPOSED: SENIOR COUNCIL OFFICERS MISDIRECTING STATUTORY COMMITTEE OF COUNCILLORS TO BENEFIT THE WEALTHY

    Full pdf of the detailed document of applicants response is now on the pages above right. This is the one that Will Godfrey and co omitted from the agenda for the PROW on thurs (personal names redacted).

  14. thebristolblogger permalink
    June 13, 2011 5:54 pm

    Bill
    How do you know they won’t be given that evidence? Or indeed ask for it, that’s if it’s at all relevent.

    Well Brian, I know that they haven’t been given the evidence because it’s not one of the appendices in the report.

    I’m not sure how evidence can’t be relevant. Can you explain that one?

  15. Deano permalink
    June 13, 2011 6:30 pm

    Dick,

    Didn’t you complain because Simon Rayner asked for a report that wasn’t in the original documentation during the Sainsburys planning meeting?

    Are you now saying that if committee member’s think a report that they weren’t originally supplied with is relevant then they should ask for it?

  16. Still Waters permalink
    June 13, 2011 9:05 pm

    Another point, hidden in the Agenda waffle:

    “This work is essential for the management of run-off from the new stadium development, but primarily will bring improvements to the quality of the area and its use for recreation by the local community. It is also recommended that the landowner keep in place management plans for the wetlands, ensuring a high-quality environment is maintained.”

    so, it isn’t primarily a Wetlands then if it’s “essential” for the stadium development. And they merely ‘recommend’ the landowner maintains it. Ten pence bet says if it costs SL anything, he’ll ignore it.

  17. Richard Lane permalink
    June 13, 2011 9:05 pm

    Bristol blogger

    “I’m not sure how evidence can’t be relevant. Can you explain that one?”
    Because it’s only a claim, with as usual no proof, only one persons opinion.

    Beano

    No I didn’t and no I’m not.
    Are you trying to invent a situation again?

    Sacredspring says
    “1. Accept the Crail TVG recommendation for the whole site.
    2. Don’t accept the TVG recommendation”.
    If it was recommended to be rejected, then Sacredspring and Stillwaters would have been screaming about how unfair it is and they should be allowed to resubmit some more evidence, or even ask Eric to have a look at it, like all the previous applications .
    Over time it’s become very evident that the TVG application has only ever been used to stop or delay the stadium, and nothing else.

    BobS
    That is your take on the situation and your entitled to it.
    As I understood it, the bulldozers were from the environment agency, clearing the ditches. Something that happens on a regular basis, as was pointed out in earlier discussions. I believe some mess was made when the bore holes were dug in number one field where the tip was but nowhere near the hedgrows. Also when the small fences were erected for species identification and counting. You have decided to apportion all of that to the club, knowing full well that they are not as yet even tennants of the land in question, and the club as such have had nothing to do with any of that work.
    Can you show us all where the club and the council accused the applicants of lying? Or is this yet another example of unsubstantiated claims? Of which there are too many to list, or even remember.

  18. thebristolblogger permalink
    June 13, 2011 9:28 pm

    Because it’s only a claim, with as usual no proof, only one persons opinion.

    The applicants’ evidence is detailed over pp.22 – 32 of the ‘Applicants submission’ document available above.

    It contains considerable amounts of proof of claims through photographic evidence and cross examination evidence for example and alludes to 188 witnesses.

  19. Still Waters permalink
    June 13, 2011 10:02 pm

    “Also when the small fences were erected for species identification and counting.” They were erected as a barrier to prevent ‘relocated’ species returning. That’s in the planning submission details. A normal practice, paid for by the Club chairman who was incidentally the new landowner (..or was it paid for out of club funds? A big chunk was withdrawn/paid over to SL in that time))

  20. Richard Lane permalink
    June 13, 2011 10:21 pm

    Stillwaters
    Those huge fences were errected to stop relocated species returning? They wouldn’t stop a rice pudding jumping it and appeared to be knocked or blown down within a short while, bloody vandals.

    Bristol Blogger
    It does not, it questions the evidence from the objectors, it does not disprove it, it merely claims to disprove it. For example, it claims that 30ft leylandi trees block the views of witnesses, yet takes no account of the speed they grow and the fact that they were not always that large or dense.
    188 people that filled in a downloaded off the shelf TVG application proof of use form. That refer to use going back 60 odd years, not the relevent 20, so was that evidence allowed by the inspector?

  21. June 13, 2011 10:24 pm

    Lane you are barking mad. The environment agency uses strimmers and hand tools to clear the banks of Colllitors Brook. Unscrupulous absentee landowners illegally use bulldozers to accidently destroy hedgerows.
    Lansdown and his cronies have been bellyaching non-stop trying to undermine the TVG enquiry.
    The applicants have maintained a dignified silence throughout. What a difference-there’s only one side that deserves the respect and admiration of the community while the other side tries every trick in the book to shat upon them and the enquiry
    Now the hearing on Thurs- Ho!Ho! which way will it go?

  22. Still Waters permalink
    June 13, 2011 11:53 pm

    Seems Onions has been busy turncoating: http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Ashton-Vale-Evidence-Withheld/story-12765100-detail/story.html

  23. Still Waters permalink
    June 14, 2011 12:10 am

    “Stillwaters
    Those huge fences were errected to stop relocated species returning? They wouldn’t stop a rice pudding jumping it and appeared to be knocked or blown down within a short while, bloody vandals.” Yes I agree entirely – useless. Huge? no..

  24. thebristolblogger permalink
    June 14, 2011 7:18 am

    It does not, it questions the evidence from the objectors, it does not disprove it, it merely claims to disprove it. For example, it claims that 30ft leylandi trees block the views of witnesses, yet takes no account of the speed they grow and the fact that they were not always that large or dense.

    Thanks for putting the case for why evidence needs to be cross-examined.

  25. BobS permalink
    June 14, 2011 8:09 am

    Rich “LIar” Lane states – “As I understood it, the bulldozers were from the environment agency, clearing the ditches. Something that happens on a regular basis, as was pointed out in earlier discussions.”

    Even the Evening Post doesn’t dare make up such a whopper.

    http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Residents-uproar-bulldozed-field/story-11296705-detail/story.html

    Lansdown only escaped criminal prosecution because the prosecuting authority is – you’ve guessed it – Bristol City Council.

  26. June 14, 2011 8:14 am

    http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Residents-uproar-bulldozed-field/story-11296705-detail/story.html

    Try commenting on the Evening Piost article. I think it might promote the article onto the website’s front news page if you do.

  27. Tony Dyer permalink
    June 14, 2011 8:50 am

    “For example, it claims that 30ft leylandi trees block the views of witnesses, yet takes no account of the speed they grow and the fact that they were not always that large or dense.”

    The individual in question was describing the view they had in the present not the past. Leylandii might grow fast but they don’t get to 30 feet overnight.

    The relevant quote;
    ““From my back windows I have the perfect view of the site. The fields are my back panoramic view and I
    can see all the fields from my back and side windows”

    Even someone with the simplest grasp of English knows the difference between “have” and “had”, and between “are” and “were”, and between “can” and “could”.

    It may well be that the individual concerned intended to refer to what the view used to be like, but the witness statement provided does not talk in the past tense. Without further scrutiny the witness statement can only be taken as it stands and as such is not compatible with a view impaired by a 30 foot Leylandii hedge.

    This is another example of why the additional evidence should be subjected to greater scrutiny in the same manner the original evidence by both sides was – in other words, cross-examination by learned counsel. It may well be that in this case the evidence might become stronger, or it may well be shown that the evidence falls apart.

  28. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    June 14, 2011 10:36 am

    On the question of the bulldozing of the hedgerows, surely Dawn promised to investigate. What did she find out? I’ve never seen her conclusions. Doe’s anybody know?

  29. BobS permalink
    June 14, 2011 10:42 am

    Yes.

    The Landowners were called to be interviewed about the matter. They refused to turn up. The Council dropped the prosecution for “lack of evidence”

  30. June 14, 2011 11:45 am

    Mr Plod should be interested in bulldozers grubbing up hedgerows full of nesting birds.

  31. Tony Dyer permalink
    June 14, 2011 6:05 pm

    “As a point of discussion. If as is suggested, only a part of the land meets the requirements for being registered as a TVG, yet the other land (former tip) has not met that criteria. It would seem that the application as a whole, has not met the requirements for a TVG and therefore should not be ratified.”

    Hi Rich

    The officer’s report states that the council believes that the land can be split and those parts of the site that meets the criteria be registered separately. As the council is the authority making the decision that would appear to imply that the council believes it can register whatever portion of the land it feels qualifies. I think there has been other cases where part of a TVG application has been adjudged to have met the criteria, and another part of the same TVG application has not and has not led to the whole of the application being rejected.

    The important question surely is whether whatever decision(s) are made on Thursday are open to successful legal challenge. (Don’t forget, unlike planning decisions there is no right of appeal, so the “injured” party will have to apply for a judicial review on the basis that the council’s decision making process was flawed). I think this is where the PROWG might have difficulty.

  32. Richard Lane permalink
    June 14, 2011 9:55 pm

    Sacredspring
    As I’ve said before, you mean the opposite of what you say.

    BobS the bullshitting accuser that never backs up his claims.

    These statements were made to the press at the time and are why I think and say as I do:
    “What we’re doing is clearing ditches for grazing purposes for a local farmer and to prevent flooding. That work has been going on over the years”.

    “Someone has jumped the gun in this case. It’s all poppycock”.

    “If there is to be any development on the land there will be a proper consultation.”

    “There’s been nothing untoward that has gone on. We’re just trying to keep the land in a good state of repair.”

    Bristol City Group Chief Executive Colin Sexstone said: “There’ll be no work started on the stadium until we’ve received planning permission – and that’ll be the beginning of 2010 at the very earliest.”

    JT Group spokesman Paul Sexton said environmental work was taking place to help them understand the site but work in the past week was completely separate from that.

    Those were statements made after the works were reported to the authorities and duly investigated, with no wrongdoings found and no prosecutions made because of as you say “lack of evidence”. But they are guilty in your eyes. So it’s not a whopper from me as you claim, but my take on the incidents as were reported in the media and the only way I have of knowing. You and others have again mysteriously decided to omit these statements, in yet another spiteful attempt at twisting reality.

    Tony
    Thanks for the reply, can you tell me if any of the applicants have been into any of the properties of the people that have submitted new evidence, or the offices of the tennis centre to assess the views? I doubt they have. They are probably using their imagination to asses the views from those properties. I do understand how someone looking from such properties at ground level, will have difficulty assessing the same view from ten/twelve foot higher and with a diminishing width of trees. Great emphasis was also made of a small window in the tennis centre. Can you see through a small window looking out? When compaired to looking in through that window, the view from inside is infinately greater. Anyone with the smallest amount of logical thought will know the difference between views from inside and at a higher level, both of which give a wider field of view, so to speak.

    We agree on the legal challenge, whether it’s successful or not remains to be seen. Let’s hope the decision making process is not flawed.

    On another matter, will you be as involved in the other stadium application, the one in your council area?
    Particularly the funding of that stadium, retail impacts, environmental impacts, planning processes and traffic assessments? Or was this one just a greenbelt issue fueling those involvements?

  33. Richard Lane permalink
    June 15, 2011 4:50 pm

    BobS

    You have come up with yet another unfounded accusation. This time you call me a liar and say I’m stating a whopper that even the evening post wouldn’t come up with. You haven’t even proven the previous accusations before coming out with another load of utter bullshit.

    I gained my information from the very story in the site you linked to. I have no other way of knowing of this alledged incident than through the local media, and the people such as yourself cannot be relied upon to give an unbiassed account of the events. I note that there were no prosecutions because of a lack of evidence.
    Here are the statements from that article wich gave me my information:

    Mr Lansdown insisted the work was not connected to Bristol City’s planned new stadium.
    He said: “The surrounding site will be developed for the football stadium – there’s no getting away from that. But not that field.”

    “What we’re doing is clearing ditches for grazing purposes for a local farmer and to prevent flooding. That work has been going on over the years”.

    “Someone has jumped the gun in this case. It’s all poppycock.”

    “If there is to be any development on the land there will be a proper consultation”.

    “There’s been nothing untoward that has gone on. We’re just trying to keep the land in a good state of repair.”

    Bristol City Group Chief Executive Colin Sexstone said: “There’ll be no work started on the stadium until we’ve received planning permission – and that’ll be the beginning of 2010 at the very earliest.”

    JT Group spokesman Paul Sexton said environmental work was taking place to help them understand the site but work in the past week was completely separate from that.

    I don’t know how much lower it’s possible for you to go.

    Tony

    We agree on most things related to this. Yahoo

    But, have the applicants access to the witnesses property to properly assess the views from those properties? Any logical person will know that the views from outside a certain property at ground level will not be as good as a view some ten or twelve feet higher and where the trees diminish in width. It’s also easier to view an area from through a small office window than trying to see in through the same apperture, in both cases the field of view (so to speak) would be greater. This appears to be a case yet again, of a personal opinion being portrayed as fact, and we all know how an opinion say like BobS has, can be distorted by emotion.

    Sacredspring

    Says “Lane you are barking mad” and “The applicants have maintained a dignified silence throughout”. Thanks for that, as I’ve said before, anything you say can be taken as completely the opposite.

  34. BobS permalink
    June 15, 2011 5:25 pm

    Richard Liar Lane can’t even read his own posts.

    You said the buldozers were from the environment agency. Liar – pants on fire.

    The reason he did not get prosecuted is because Bristol City Council are too scared to do so. They are the prosecuting authoirty. They knew he had no licenses because he would have had to get them from BCC.

    One rule for the rich.

  35. thebristolblogger permalink
    June 15, 2011 6:25 pm

    On the money Bob. All the senior politicians and senior officers at BCC are shit scared of Lansdown. Some, privately, openly admit he’s “a bully”.

    But what do they think he can do to them? Why do they give in Lansdown’s crap?

    Beyond getting his third rate solicitors, Clark Willmott, to write them stupid, snotty letters and get Onions to cut ‘n’ paste his views into the Post there’s very little harm he can actually do to anyone.

    Some people need to grow some balls at the Council House or hand over to some people who have some.

  36. Still Waters permalink
    June 15, 2011 6:47 pm

    “I gained my information from the very story in the site you linked to. I have no other way of knowing of this alledged incident than through the local media, and the people such as yourself cannot be relied upon to give an unbiassed account of the events. ” And you relied instead on the unbiased local media? You’re a Daily Mail advocate then?

    ““What we’re doing is clearing ditches for grazing purposes for a local farmer and to prevent flooding. That work has been going on over the years”.

    No ditches were cleared – I have photographic evidence of what happened, and it wasn’t anywhere near a ditch. The hedgerows that were grubbed out have now been replaced by bramble thickets – great for berries, but bloody awful for cows.

    “Says “Lane you are barking mad” and “The applicants have maintained a dignified silence throughout”. Thanks for that, as I’ve said before, anything you say can be taken as completely the opposite.”

    So, SacredSpring is an applicant? There are two applicants, only one has ever made a statement to the local rag, under threat of duress at that.

    Dicky, you’re the one going barking mad.

    “BCAGFC –

    I was extremely optimistic until I saw that document on another thread. IMO, we are in trouble if it goes to court (if the document is accurate). OTIB

    It’s very accurate, with plenty of evidence to back it up. I suspect funding is already in place for a JR, and I’m aware of the possibility that certain councillors might be ‘held legally responsible’ for their words and actions.

    It has to be said, whoever really wrote that Agenda nailed BCC and BCFC into a very tight coffin.

  37. Richard Lane permalink
    June 15, 2011 10:28 pm

    BobS

    You don’t have the intlligence to differentiate a lie from any other type of statement. I did not say the bulldozers were from the environment agency, I said ” as I understood it, the bulldozers were from the env agency” That’s what I thought when working from memory, as it turns out I’d taken the quote from Paul Sexton saying it was environmental work, thinking it was from the env agency. As I said that’s how I understood it.

    Now when are you going to prove any of your slanderous accusations About BCFC and the city council?
    We’re still waiting.

    Stillwaters Baby

    When did I say Sacredspring was an applicant? I didn’t even imply that, once more your enthusiasm for insults and lack of grey matter has let you down.
    I don’t read the Mail, I read and listen to as much local coverage as I can. I then make a judgement on those stories and who’s bullshitting, most of the bullshit comes from the supporters of a TVG, and when BB asks for more balls from the council, the answer is, ther’es none leaft, because all the bollocks comes from this site.
    If you have photographic evidence of what happened why don’t you use it? Probably because it isn’t evidence at all. Why didn’t you give it to the council that needed evidence for a prosecution? Your probably frightened to come out from behind your computer screen, where you’d have to meet real people that won’t put up with your childish insults, if the truth was known.

    Everyone is against you aren’t they, poor you. The press the BBC, ITV, none of them have given any of the objectors to any of the schemes air time or page columns, according to you. This is the same biassed media that gave GF a collumn to fight the supermarket development, the EP and radio Bristol held a debate on the TVG, that not one applicant or local supporter in AV could be bothered to turn up for, yet was supported by the bumbling Ron Morton from South Glos because it suited his campaign. There have been so many letters printed in the EP supporting the TVG, or opposing the Greenbelt development and plenty of biassed comments from you and your mates, plus radio debates. Yet you claim a media biassed against you lot, it’s laughable really. The plain fact is, you are a tiny minority and you have had far more than your fair share of coverage to put accross your grievences. If you did not know before, the only real winner in all this, are the media. They have fuelled the stories and fanned the flames on both sides, to create a debate where none or little existed, and increased readership or listeners, while at the same time building a vast library of material for future use.

    You live in a dream world and shout conspiracy, yet knock anyone that delivers proof of collusion amongst objecting groups.
    You lower yourself to petty name calling, that’s if you aren’t already that low, in a vain attempt to gain petty points. You accuse others of obtaining support from around the country, yet obtain support for your campaign from anywhere and anyone stupid enough to swallow the lies you use to portray the situation in your favour. For example: You asked members of the RSPB to support your petition and used plans for the stadium site, which still included the housing and claimed the development was purely for profit for a multi millionaire. This was a deliberate attempt at misleading those very same people you were asking support of, despicable misrepresntation I call it. I note to this date you still have not shown comparative figures for your petition in regards to where the signaturies come from, though I did not expect this honesty from you.

    The quote from BCAGFC is one from someone that cannot see through the glaring moaning of, it not being fair, in the applicants reply which is actually devoid of any evidence, just claims.

    If as you say I’m going barking mad, it’s hardly surprising reading the crap written on here by the likes of you. If I am going mad, then I’m only trying to catch up with you, but with a very long way to travel yet.

  38. thebristolblogger permalink
    June 16, 2011 6:40 am

    I think you need to have a long lie down in a darkened room Dickie.

  39. BobS permalink
    June 16, 2011 7:29 am

    Rich – Didn’t the BEP sack George Ferguson because of that Sainsbury’s article ? Another own goal Rich.

    All the evidence – the photos, the statements, the plans and maps, the documents – all of it was befroe the Independant Inspector and is referenced in her report. If (as you dishonestly say) you have read everything on the topic (which I presume would include the Inspector’s report) you would know that. But instead you come on here and lie.

    If you want the evidence of corruption and dishonesty, then read the Applicants’ submissions referenced above. I’d presumed you have read those because that’s what we all read and are all talking about.

Comments are closed.