Skip to content

Thumbs up for Judicial Review on council dodgy Ashton Vale TVG decision

January 16, 2012

I’m waiting confirmation from the official grapevine but the top 2012 news is that a judge has confirmed there’s going to be a JR on the TVG.
Good old judicial reviews. Insurance policy for the masses. So south Bristol and Long ashton residents are still in there with a good chance of getting the TVG dodgy fudge-up overturned.
Crazy council spends tens of thousands on the Ross Crail Ashton VAle TVG investigation then even crazier council spends tens of thousands fighting the decision of the Ross Crail Ashton Vale TVG investigation!
Then the public rights of way committee gets nobbled and comes up with Ye Olde Fudge Shoppe decision by completely ignoring the stonewall reccommendations of the Ross Crail detailed investigation.
Long Ashton Council smelt a rat stumped up some legal fees and hey presto! Judge smells a ratfest. Wouldn’t grant a JR without some evidence – no smoke without salmon as they say.
Don’t hold your breath for a quick decision though-these JR’s have been known to take a few years!
Council just lately has had a serious TVG malfuncion.
Anyone know why they hate their constituents and residents so much?

  1. January 16, 2012 9:54 am

    ‘Freedom of Information figures from four local councils show that town green cases have cost the taxpayer more than £500,000 over the past four years.’

    ‘Bristol council dealt with 12 applications which cost more than £300,000’

    Find out more on Inside Out West on BBC One today at 19:30 GMT.

  2. bobs permalink
    January 16, 2012 10:54 am

    Great to have this story back again. Life was a bit dull without it.

    Have you noticed that whilst all the news agencies have the full text from the Judge, not one is referring to the Judicial reference to the “threats and violence” towards residents.

    Bit fail from the BBC on this one.

  3. bobs permalink
    January 16, 2012 10:58 am

    Another big fail from the BBC is that they are suggesting that BCCs £300,000 spend is on processing the TVG applications when it is in fact mostly on oppopsing the TVG applications.

    BBC falling right in step with the BEP now. No independent news in Bristol.

  4. Richard Lane permalink
    January 16, 2012 7:19 pm

    There’s no reference to those allegations, as there is no proof they are related to this case. There have been no prosecutions, only claims, despite so called evidence. I am not saying that things have not occurred but, if attacks have been made against residents or their property in Ashtonvale by somebody, why are football supporters blamed? They could just as likely carried out those attacks against supporters of the schemes that live there by mistake. No names or addresses of objectors have been released to the public.
    Likewise no violence has been carried out against the much more high profile opponents to all the plans, that reside or trade in North St and Southville. So why only those in AV?

  5. harryT permalink
    January 16, 2012 8:45 pm

    So is this the real “Richard Lane” ?

    I’m not convinced yet one way or the other. They generally bring out the fake one for events like this.

  6. thebristolblogger permalink
    January 16, 2012 8:52 pm

    Dickie “The papers and local media would know before this anarchist” Lane finally arrives with his inaccurate precis …

  7. harryT permalink
    January 16, 2012 8:56 pm

    This is the test.

    Richard – Did you or did you not suggest that news first reported by TBB on Twitter was likely to be false and why ?

    The real Richard Lane would know.

  8. Valey permalink
    January 16, 2012 9:10 pm

    “No names or addresses of objectors have been released to the public.”

    But they have been posted on OTIB, haven’t they?

    You’ve been caught out Mr Lane. This post was left open to public view for about 18 hours, read by several hundred OTIB members.

    A few hours after this was posted, a brick was thrown through the window of the address given.

    And who was it a few articles ago asking why it was so quiet and mentioning the JR applicant was a Gas supporter? The same misleading information was posted on the unofficial BCFC twitter account, along with a name and address, and passed on to other OTIB members, including you, Richard – otherwise why would you come here and brag about it?

    Please feel free to claim that the photo is shopped. Google cached web pages don’t lie.

  9. January 17, 2012 10:17 am

    The intimidation either real or feared has been an issue throughout this planning debate. Why the heck the clubs owners didn’t come out and stamp it out right away so that all sides could have a fair debate and get on with a normal life?
    As it is the sides have been polarised such that a compromise is pretty much impossible. So the pisspoor halfhearted mediation attempts were doomed to failure from the beginning.
    The legal JR route was all that was left for residents and no amount of squirming from Simon Cook is likely to change that.

  10. Richard Lane permalink
    January 17, 2012 11:22 am

    Which one am I? You really are as deluded as BobS.
    I don’t know what you’re looking for but, you refer to TBB who I presume is The Bristol Blogger, or the big logger as I know him. I have not commented on his statement regarding the TVG, unless he also uses the title of Bristol Citizen on twitter, I don’t think I claimed it to be false, I just questioned whether it would have been released on a sunday evening.
    I don’t use twitter, but now I know that the two posters are the same person, I also know that someone from your side has access to the posts in the restricted section of OTIB.

  11. spider on the wall permalink
    January 17, 2012 1:44 pm

    Why would OTIB have a restricted section?

    What on earth is there to hide on a football forum.

  12. Richard Lane permalink
    January 17, 2012 2:34 pm

    It’s for the same reason those opposing the stadium and supermarket developments carried out their meetings in secret. So as not to let the opposition know what people are discussing and inform interested supporters of any developments. Nothing sinister as you’d probably like to think, that site is very well moderated, unlike many other sites used by opposition groups.

  13. bobs permalink
    January 17, 2012 4:56 pm

    In the Harry Potter books the “restricted zone” of the library was where all the Dark Art books were kept.

    On Otib, I think it is the place where they are free to make threats of the type shown to the Judge in the Judicial Review.

  14. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    January 17, 2012 8:01 pm

    As Stephen Lansdown has said, let the law take it’s course. That sounds fair enough to me, and as long as all the evidence is honest, and the judge independant, who can ask for any more.

  15. Richard Lane permalink
    January 17, 2012 8:25 pm

    If you had the strength of character to meet me, I would be more than willing to show you the content and historical posts, to once and for all quell these stupid wild claims that you constantly make. I do fear however, that you will not take me up on my invitation, because it would not suit your train of thought, you’d probably claim that the content was edited, or that there was another section for the real vitriol, carried out by the other me.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if both parties were playing the same game though. By that I mean, not dragging everything out to the last minute on every occasion with every act. If only the people with the hidden agenda, of not wanting the supermarket, weren’t still involved behind the scenes. You know what I mean, no stadium, or delayed stadium = no or possibly no supermarket.
    Or if the people weren’t still involved that don’t want greenbelt development affecting their house values and rural ideals.
    There are so many different groups, not normally associated, that are using that normally opposed association to help their own causes.

  16. bobs permalink
    January 18, 2012 8:34 am


    You know nothing about this process at all. You are as bad as the BEP commentators with their made up facts.

    It was the landowners who first refused to consider any compromise. It was a meddling green who first suggested compromise. The landowners said to the TVGs faces they would fight to the end and not compromise.

    It was the Landowners who then messed up the mediation by staying silent for 2 months after the initial meeting and then suddenly trying to force an unacceptable version of an agreement the day before the Sainsbury’s hearing.

    It was the Club’s fans who messed up the compormise as well. As the TVGers were due to meet to vote on a later compormise deal (which at that time was expected to get voted through) Otib suddenly announces the location of the meeting and encouraged fans to go along and “make their feelings known”. The meeting was cancelled and the local feeling towards compromise with the club changed

    Even when it looked as if the locals might accept the split deal from the Council, it was the Council at the last minute which suddenly backtracked from calling the split “a compromise” and instead said the locals were lying about the north of the land.

    Even when it still looked as if most locals might accept the split, the Council decide after the PROWG to remove from the TVG the two entrances and the right of way, so leaving the TVG inaccesible.

    The blame for this situation lies entirely with the club, its owners and a group of its fans.

  17. Richard Lane permalink
    January 18, 2012 12:14 pm

    As I said, If you had the strength of character to meet me, I would be more than willing to show you the content and historical posts, to once and for all quell these stupid wild claims that you constantly make. I do fear however, that you will not take me up on my invitation, because it would not suit your train of thought, you’d probably claim that the content was edited, or that there was another section for the real vitriol, carried out by the other me.

    Why should the landowners compromise with a group of people that are trying to stop the landowners doing something with their own land? The only reason was to get their plans through quicker. To give away and pay for the development of half of their own land for use by others, is compromise enough and too far in my opinion.
    If you wanted to build a house on your land and your neighbor said he didn’t want you to and that he wanted your land for his use, what would you say?
    Feelings were obviously running high, but you seem to have been very selective with your interpretation of events.

  18. January 18, 2012 3:14 pm

    Landgrabbing greedmerchants not interested in local residents or community.

    Bought greenbelt on the cheap, nobbled and hoodwinked council into granting PP.

    Spineless council give them loads of extra free land for bugger-all.

    Yea why should cowboy ‘developers’ compromise?

    Well the law will decide, a few years hence how much the people of South Bristol have been stiched up.

    Football heads like Rich couldn’t give a toss about compromise-follows the example from the dear leader.

  19. Richard Lane permalink
    January 18, 2012 4:12 pm

    Your comments are very disrespectful and not representative of my opinions or thoughts.

    I’m sorry for the late reply but I have only just seen your post.
    As for being caught out, I don’t know what I’ve been caught out with.
    I didn’t know of the post you refer to as it was removed before I saw it, I’m not on that site 24hours a day. Obviously some idiots post things and they get through for a while, it might be down to when it’s posted or if the mods see it. No official post from the club or OTIB has ever released names and addresses as far as I know, yet the claims persist. I know the name address of the applicant but wouldn’t release it for fear of idiots taking action aginst the person or property.
    I am not a member of the trust that run that site, merely a contributor.
    I am not associated to the club eiher, other than being a seaon ticket holder.
    I also contribute to sites such as this to give a different point of view, as such I have become the whipping boy for lot’s of those opposed who think I represent the club or supporters trust. Some even think there are two of me.
    What’s the verdict?

    I have never bragged about a name being released. I merely pointed out that it is an ironic situation that a supporter of BRFC has made the application for a JR.

  20. spider on the wall permalink
    January 18, 2012 5:00 pm

    How do you know that the application was made by a supporter of BRFC, what proof do you have?

  21. Richard Lane permalink
    January 18, 2012 5:40 pm


    How can we be sure of anything. Some people believe that there are two of me, or that I’m employed by the club, or that I’m going to get some building work from the developments.
    At the end of the day, I believe what I’ve been told, which came from a resident of Ashton Vale that knows the person.
    I suppose bricks will fly through that residents window now. You see, not everyone is opposed to the stadium in Ashton Vale. From what I can see, there are many in support and more who would be quite happy or indifferent to it going ahead.

  22. Richard Lane permalink
    January 18, 2012 5:46 pm

    Speculation it’s called. You, your job, your house and your neighbourhood would not exist without it. You decide to call it land grabbing from greed merchants, yet you support land grabbing by residents. The residents don’t and never have owned the land, just some of them used it. Now you think they should take it away from the owner, who’s the greed merchant?

  23. spider on the wall permalink
    January 18, 2012 5:52 pm

    Are you saying you got your information from Mad Max on OTIB, the ‘Ashton Vale resident’?

    Was it via the hidden forum or a PM?

  24. January 18, 2012 7:30 pm

    Residents want to preserve green space and wildlife resource for all citizens benefit. They want to protect the greenbelt for future generations.
    Foreign speculator wants to concrete it with profit mongering McShite outlets so’s more millions can be squandered on obscene wages to a few over-hyped sportsmen.
    Soccer players already have a stadium. Greed, cash and vanity drive the new stadium rollercoaster.
    Altruism and preservation of precious greenspace drives the TVG.
    So who retains the ethical and moral high ground?

  25. Richard Lane permalink
    January 18, 2012 8:20 pm

    The moral high ground is held by those that don’t want to steal that which does not belong to them. The same people that have gone about their business using the laws of the land and not proffessing to say they speak for all and sundry, like you do.


  26. thebristolblogger permalink
    January 18, 2012 8:28 pm

    Surely taking out a Judicial Review of an executive decision is “using the laws of the land”?

  27. Richard Lane permalink
    January 18, 2012 8:35 pm

    It is, so is buying land not trying to steal it.

  28. thebristolblogger permalink
    January 18, 2012 8:39 pm

    So everyone’s using the laws of the land? Your point is?

  29. Richard Lane permalink
    January 18, 2012 10:20 pm

    My point is. Sacredspring and others, claim the moral high ground.
    Both parties are using the law of the land, yet one party is using that law to steal the property of the other. The party threatened with losing it’s land, has offered (however reluctantly), the free use of half of it’s own land in an attempt to expadite the situation. That’s not enough for the people that want to steal the land, they want to have all of the other parties land for their use. Some moral high ground eh!!!.

  30. Richard Lane permalink
    January 18, 2012 10:29 pm


    My previous message to Valey saying no, should have been addressed to you. So in answer to your questions, No.


    Some residents may think this, as you claim. “Residents want to preserve green space and wildlife resource for all citizens benefit. They want to protect the greenbelt for future generations”.
    Others and many from outside that area, are behind and a part of the opposition, that think only of stopping the stadium and supermarket. That’s what it’s about and you know it.

  31. Richard Lane permalink
    January 18, 2012 11:02 pm

    It’s a shame that those who claim they only want to protect the land for everyones future use, never applied for a TVG when the initial application for a landfil site went in, or, when it finished, or, when an application for a tennis centre went in, or, when the council applied for a park and ride for the site, or, in the initial period before the present landowners bought the land, or, when surveyors were measuring and surveying the land, or, as soon as there was talk of a stadium going there. Instead they wait until the plans are lodged for the stadium, strange that, don’t you think?
    Obviously much of that land claimed to have been used by the community over a period of 20 years was underneath those areas covered by the park and ride, the tennis centre, and the access roads.

  32. spider on the wall permalink
    January 18, 2012 11:51 pm

    Actually you’ll find it was the council who sat on the application for several months.

  33. thebristolblogger permalink
    January 19, 2012 7:23 am

    “The opposition, that think only of stopping the stadium.”

    I’ve been following and contributing to this story for about 5 years now and I’m yet to meet anyone who is interested in simply “stopping the stadium” for the hell of it.

    The issue is the location of the new stadium.

  34. harryT permalink
    January 19, 2012 8:29 am

    The history of the locals opposition to the uses of this land as landfill and for development is well set out in the TVG decision and through extensive involvement in previous planning applications which were rejected. In the ’80s greenbelt status and SNCI status was acheived. People thought that was enough.

    It was only when a new landowner suddenly started bulldozing legally protected hedgerows (to which the council took no action) that the locals realised that greenbelt and SNCI was not enough protection

  35. harryT permalink
    January 19, 2012 8:55 am

    Rich states – “Obviously much of that land claimed to have been used by the community over a period of 20 years was underneath those areas covered by the park and ride, the tennis centre, and the access roads.”

    Err. no. That would “obviously” be a lie. Those all lie over the border in somerset, separated from this land by a brook, a path and a double line of fences.

  36. Deano permalink
    January 19, 2012 8:59 am

    Not sure how residents could have applied for a Town Green under the Commons Act 2006 in the 1980’s and 1990’s which is when the landfill site and the park and ride were built.

  37. January 19, 2012 9:33 am

    Theft of greenbelt and concreting it is an old trick of cowboy builders.
    Its greenbelt and can’t be built on apparantly so is dirt cheap.
    Then a rich bloke sniffs a deal, nobbles the planning process-hey presto! He’s done a Paul daniels and pulled a multi million pound profit out of a hat.

    Clearance of slum dwelling peasants from the land was the old story in feudal England.
    Wealthy absentee landlords in Scotland also loved to shift on the bagpipe playing skirt wearing locals who spoiled the view.

    Luckily times have moved on, in Scotland the right to roam and in Bristol the right to claim TVG. These are the ancient rights of us citizens to freely use what we’ve done for generations. Absentee lords of the Manor have discovered they can’t stop brave bulldog spirited locals from battling against feudal style land clearance.

  38. bigredrichRichard Lane permalink
    January 19, 2012 2:58 pm

    Are you saying the council submitted the TVG application? Because as far as I know it was submitted and registered the day after the stadium plans were lodged.
    The applications only started three years ago, so how you’ve followed it for five years I don’t know. The application for a TVG has been used to stop the stadium development in that location. If it were a different location then no TVG would have been sought.

  39. bigredrichRichard Lane permalink
    January 19, 2012 3:40 pm


    The application for a TVG was made before any claimed bulldozing of hedges took place.
    The application for a TVG was as we know, just after the plans for the stadium were lodged.
    The work on the TVG application to get it ready was carried well before but not registered.

    The land I referred to was part of the landfill site. According to witness reports, the landfill site was accessable, so we can assume those areas were used by residents as well.
    Are you saying categorically that nobody used those fields because they were in Somerset?
    There are footpaths marked quite clearly on maps of that area, they pass accross the land I refer to, and to and from Ashton Vale. What are they for if not for access? That also applies to the gates, brook, fences and the tracks. As the witnessess stated, they were not restricted on any of the land they used in any way, so why would that land, even if it’s in Somerset not be accessable and used.

    Just like other posters, you have been selective with your memory of events, or downright intentionally misleading. You have the nerve to claim I’m lying, look up the meaning.

    I’m quite sure they would not have used the 2006 act to apply for a TVG in the 80s.
    I think the sensible thing to have done would have used the laws in place at the time.

    As we all know but you choose to forget, that land was due to be taken out of greenbelt for an expansion of the south Bristol urban extension. All the councils knew, so somebody speculated on it’s use. As we all know, housing was not allowed but the stadium was, because it met the special requirements needed to allow building on greenbelt land. Get used to it.
    You claim profit is being made on that land purchase, yet never explain where the profit is, please enlighten us with your explanation, using the planned developments, including the development costs and the original purchase price, to show the profit.
    I expect another fudge from the monster fudger Sacredspring.

  40. Richard Lane permalink
    January 19, 2012 9:47 pm

    Two posts written earlier, awaiting moderation, or is that censorship?

  41. January 20, 2012 7:57 am

    Any new posters have to wait approval due to spam. Best not to change name or ID if you demand instant response and comment.

  42. January 20, 2012 8:39 am

    You claim profit is being made on that land purchase, yet never explain where the profit is, please enlighten us with your explanation, using the planned developments, including the development costs and the original purchase price, to show the profit.

    Bigredrich knows that its pointless moving to a new stadium with hotel and all the other building works if there’s no money to be realised. Land values increases are massive from cheap agricultural land and greenbelt
    Ashton Gate also showed how ruthless landowners will maximise profits with a monster hypermarket campaign-that was 100% profiteering. Same thing would happen to new stadium on the town green if wealthy landlord decides to pull out and it all went titzup.

  43. thebristolblogger permalink
    January 20, 2012 5:02 pm

    I was partially mistaken Dickie. The land deal when Longmoor Land Ltd sold the Ashton Vale site to Vence LLP (Lansdown and son) was concluded in December 2007.

    That’s four years not five years. But this saga has been going on longer than you’ve been following it.

  44. thebristolblogger permalink
    January 20, 2012 5:17 pm

    While checking those dates for Dickie I came across this from December 2009 in my predictions for 2010:

    Also expected early next year is the Ashton Vale town green hearing. Local residents have put in an application to have some of the Ashton Vale land protected and the Blogger learns this process has been mysteriously “fast tracked” and we can expect a hearing early in the year.

    Landowners Pontin and Lansdown are said to have their lawyers primed – as will the city council – while residents are talking up their chances as “pretty good”.

    Best keep an eye on this one as it may deliver surprises …

    Do I get a Mystic Meg award for that?

  45. Bobs permalink
    January 20, 2012 7:53 pm

    Yes. It was always going to he fast tracked until the TVGers won. Then suddenly the delays began.

    First the council sat on the decision for months. Then the club demanded 3 months to consider the decision. Then the “new” evidence appeared. When the TVGers showed the “new” evidence to be either old evidence or crap, the mediation was introduced.

    And Rich still claims that it is the TVGers who are dragging it all out.

    As regard the prediction, I only thought the TVGers would win once the farmer and the waste depot manager changed their evidence under cross examination to back the TVG.

  46. Bobs permalink
    January 20, 2012 8:01 pm

    Also Rich – the destruction of the hedgerows was a few months after he bought the land. His first contact with his new neighbours. Well before the planning permission.

    It was this act that got the locals all mobilised after 20 years of peace since the landfill ended.

    Still Rich – accuracy has never really bothered you has it.

  47. Richard Lane permalink
    January 20, 2012 10:42 pm

    Accuracy!!! your having a laugh. A few months after he bought the land? That was five years ago, that would have been 2007, so twenty years before that 1987 and the tip had stopped then? Accuracy? TVGs won? accuracy, what did they win?
    “His first contact with his new neighbours. Well before the planning permission” accuracy?

    Due to my ignorance because I’m not party to the dealings of the TVG, when and why did the council sit on the TVG decision?

    Partially mistaken? what’s a couple of years after all.

    All. My last posts were through an in private session. so the different name appeared.

  48. Richard Lane permalink
    January 20, 2012 11:20 pm


    To be fair, it appears that you make a fair point regarding the applications and people thinking that the area was safe.
    If they thought it was safe, why did they apply for the TVG after the plans for the stadium were registered and not before?
    The threat of the stadium was there five years ago when the land was purchased.
    The plans for the South Bristol urban extension, were released/known before the stadium plans emerged, that’s why the land was bought. And the residents could still have applied for a TVG at anytime before.
    If they really wanted one, they could have applied before, regardless of greenbelt status, as that would have negated any threat whatsoever. As we all know greenbelt development has always been possible, especially on formerly used land.
    The only reason in mine and the vast majority of peoples opinion is, that it was done to stop or delay the stadium.
    There are some people with genuine concerns about the fields to the south, but nobody in their right minds can describe those raised up fields of the former landfil site where the stadium is going, a pleasant natural environment.
    Jean, a local resident of many years recently described this raised up area on radio Bristol, as impassable on foot, as it was under water for weeks. If that were the case, the gardens and some houses would also have been under water. Still let the residents say it as it is, because their not known to lie or exagerate are they?

  49. Richard Lane permalink
    January 20, 2012 11:36 pm


    Where are the figures for the profits then?
    You have completely dodged the questions again.

    There can only be a profit, if the land, stadium, hotel or whatever are sold for more than the overal cost to develop. As we all know there is a massive shortfall on the stadium build costs, this shortfall or loss, is being covered by Mr Lansdown, so no profit as you wrongly claim.

    Expect another rant about giving land away and megabucks being made by Lansdown.

    You contradict yourself so much.

  50. Richard Lane permalink
    January 20, 2012 11:43 pm

    How about yo answering some of the questions I posed you?
    You seem to have sidestepped the questions for some reason.

    If you’ve forgotten them, here is a reminder: Why should the landowners compromise with a group of people that are trying to stop the landowners doing something with their own land?
    If you wanted to build a house on your land and your neighbor said he didn’t want you to and that he wanted your land for his use, what would you say?
    Hypothetical I know, yet these are the same questions and demands being made of the landowners.

  51. Richard Lane permalink
    January 20, 2012 11:56 pm

    BB My little dumpling.
    Could you tell me how long it is I’ve been following (as you put it) this little saga?
    To save you the trouble, I’ll let you know.
    I’ve been following it since the stadium plans were first announced, but you would not and could not have known that, even though you seem to think you do.
    My first involvement, was to set up the counter petition, in favour of a supermarket at Ashton gate. This was done to counter the Tesno petition set up by Charlie Bolton and supported mainly by know it all residents of the Southville area, plus and green minded people regionwide, as well as people worried about greenbelt developments around Bristol and the southwest.

  52. Richard Lane permalink
    January 21, 2012 12:15 am

    Still Waters

    I know your busy trying to gather evidence, if you have a minute perhaps you’d like to read some of the other posts which aren’t as damning to you and the other TVG supporters.
    There’s one where people are suggesting use of the wetland area, such as this one : “Just had a word with Brian Morell from the wildfowl and wetlands trust. Really interested in our site. What can we do to make this something Bristol can really be proud of?”

  53. January 21, 2012 1:37 am

    Too many posts in a row from rich smacks of desperation.
    Of course the new stadium enterprise has to make money, what kind of an idiot would think otherwise. Unless all the assets of the new stadium, posh housing, hotel, bars conference centre food oulets etc etc are transferred into a non-profit making trust, which would be a very nice gesture and win a massive number of friends including me.
    Of course there will be profits and they will be squandered on the overblown players gravy train that is causing so many clubs to stare at the abyss.
    Anyone follow the news on Darlington? Two million in debt and the stadium etc likely to become an outlet centre. New 25,000 seater stadium as well built with the mantra “if we build it they will come”.

  54. Richard Lane permalink
    January 21, 2012 11:16 am

    Just as I thought, another fudge. You were talking about land values and profits being made by building a stadium and the other collective developments. Now you talk of profits from bars and hotels as a deflection from what you were trying to portray, because you have no answer to the questions.
    You know full well that any percieved profits from the other developments will go towards the stadium, and the shortfall/loss taken up by Mr Lansdown.

    The number of posts relate to the number of issues being discussed with various other posters. Your the desperate one with your ducking and diving avoiding the questions.

  55. bobs permalink
    January 21, 2012 12:43 pm

    Rich states: “BobS How about you answering some of the questions I posed you?
    You seem to have sidestepped the questions for some reason. If you’ve forgotten them, here is a reminder: Why should the landowners compromise with a group of people that are trying to stop the landowners doing something with their own land? If you wanted to build a house on your land and your neighbor said he didn’t want you to and that he wanted your land for his use, what would you say? Hypothetical I know, yet these are the same questions and demands being made of the landowners.”

    The landowners spent 5 months pretending to compromise and you previously complained that it was the TVGers who were never going to compormise. now, you have switched your position and accepted that all efforts at compromise came from the TVGers and the club and its fans just avoided compromise. So, ignoring your hyposrisy for a moment ….

    Reasons why the landowners should compromise:

    1. they might end up with a stadium on the land
    2. they might not be hated by all their neighbours
    3. they might increase their gate if the residents of southville and ashton vale don’t hate them so much and might even be seen as a community team representing their locality rather than a club for hardcore ultra fans only.

    Land is about more than ownership. We have more than 1,000 years of law and history of rights of way, rights of recreation, rights of grazing, rights to take wood etc. Owning land has never provided the right to do want you want with it. Its naive and childish of you to suggest that it does. Otherwise, every bit of green space would have mutlistory car parks and nuclear waste facilties on it

  56. harryT permalink
    January 21, 2012 12:49 pm


    If you had even bothered to read the Inspectors Report you would see a 50 year history of efforts by locals to preserve this land including objecting to the original landfill, blocking extention of the landfill, blocking plans for housing, supporting green belt status, supporting SNCI status, seeking prosecution of those who ripped out the hedgrows.

    To say that locals only started acting when the stadium plans arrived is a complete lie. They acted to seek a TVG when they suspected that the council would not respect the greenbelt or the SNCI. Their application took many hundreds of hours work (with no assitance from outsiders, green or otherwise) and was still submitted prior to planning approval for the stadium.

  57. Richard Lane permalink
    January 21, 2012 6:48 pm

    You have not answered the questions at all.
    If you have forgotten, the landowners did compromise, as I said before. They did it in an attempt to realise their plans sooner. You seem to have conveniently forgotten that it was they that agreed to give up 22 acres of their land and pay for the development of the TVG and wetland area. You are so selective but transparrent at the same time.
    You have a distorted view of the way BCFC is seen in the community, it is probably because you are bitter and twisted and mix with like minded people, or more likely nobody at all. Ask the shopkeepers and landlords of south Bristol if they hate BCFC? Of course there will be some but your little troup have more than thier fair share of haters, it’s just that you’re too blind to see.
    Get out a bit and see the work BCFC do in the community, you could start by looking at the amount of families that attend the matches, there are a mindless few admittedly, you have lumped everyone in that bracket and you are so detatched from the reality it’s unbelievable.

    Now about this house planned for your garden, what’s the answer?

  58. Richard Lane permalink
    January 21, 2012 7:03 pm


    You are lying. I did not say the locals only started acting when the stadium plans arrived. I said they only applied for a TVG once the stadium plans were registered, is that correct or not? If it’s not then I’m mistaken.
    Now, you are full of these insulting claims, yet it is you that does the lying, you dream up what you think I’ve said, claim it to be a lie and print it.
    Tell me where I made that statement. You won’t be able to because it was not made by me. The most decent thing you could do is retract your claims, that will most likely not happen, as going on past experience, you don’t have the decency to do it.

  59. Richard Lane permalink
    January 21, 2012 7:19 pm


    Wrong again, where do you dream this stuff up?

    You claim I have switched position: “TVGers who were never going to compormise. now, you have switched your position and accepted that all efforts at compromise came from the TVGers and the club and its fans just avoided compromise”.
    Twisted by BobS again. I have never thought, let alone stated that the TVGers have compromised, where did you get that stupid thought. In my opinion there has never been compromise, unless you think that compromise is demanding that you have use of all the land, which happens to be owned by another person, for your own use.
    There may however have been a will to compromise from some of the TVG supporters/ stadium opposition groups, but it never materialised, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about a JR on this blogsite.
    I don’t see how the club and it’s fans are in a position to compromise anyway, as they are nothing to do with the process.

  60. January 21, 2012 10:06 pm

    FAct is that the mega-rich landowner who bought greenbelt on the cheap and tried to dump a massive development on the greenbelt has been caught out at last by the laws of the land.
    Judicial review will eventually expose the lengths to which councillors have gone to appease the wealthy businessmen at the expense of the citys residents and greenbelt.

  61. thebristolblogger permalink
    January 21, 2012 10:08 pm

    What a barrage of babble. Dickie appears to be having at least three separate arguments with himself on here.

  62. Richard Lane permalink
    January 22, 2012 12:02 am

    That’s right, keep your insults simple, while avoiding saying anything at all, tis a marvelous skill you have.

    Remind us all, how many years is it you’ve been following this saga?
    Big Logger says “Mumble mumble insult, it’s five? mumble oh no it’s four, or is it two? Yes i think it’s two but I’ll pretend it’s five insults, no years, no four, oh no!!! it’s Dickie that’s mad, yippee, back to my insult/twit account”.

    Perhaps you’d like to direct your stupid comments to babbling Bob or hilarious Harry, their the ones digging the hole for themselves with their contradictions.

    A little reminder for you, the JR is to see if the decision was taken properly by the council and only that. The rest of your dribble is just that.

  63. January 22, 2012 8:06 am

    BB is right – four comments posted in a row looks like you’re on a mission to win top comment count prize. Keep the replies concise Mr rich its hard enough following your garbled waffle.
    The JR will certainly pass comment on the methods used by the council.
    It has already put it on record that intimidation has been a feature of the process by imposing the rarely used gagging order.

  64. Richard Lane permalink
    January 22, 2012 5:29 pm

    Six in a row actually. That’s because if I didn’t reply to all the posters accusations towards me, they’d think they’d got something correct, which we all know is utter bullshit.

    Surely you mean percieved intimdation. I’ve seen ironic comments made and interpreted literally on many occasions. In fact that’s happened to me on many a time. Some people just don’t read things properly before posting a reply, I know I’ve done it myself. But there again I’m honest enough to admit a mistake. Bristol Blogger is the only other poster I’ve known admit to a mistake on this site, fair play to him.

  65. January 22, 2012 10:29 pm

    Gagging order is in place for good reason and you know it and so does the judge.
    Six comments in a row-miscounted obviously and I hold my hand up-six verbose but ultimately lightweight inaccurate and groundless arguments.
    For instance you are now claiming that there is nothing profitable in moving stadium and building all the cash generators, so what’s the point in wrecking the town green? May as well stay put and hope the current losses get written off. Does new stadium mean even bigger losses and even more chance of another ‘foodstore’?

  66. Richard Lane permalink
    January 22, 2012 10:35 pm


    I have looked in more detail at your claim regarding the post on OTIB.
    You say “You’ve been caught out Mr Lane. This post was left open to public view for about 18 hours, read by several hundred OTIB members”.

    Firstly I asked the moderators how long this post was on the site. The answer given was, two to three hours. I am more inclined to believe this for the simple reason that there would have been many more requests and references to the post, had it been on the site for the period you claim, (18hours from 5.07pm). This would have straddled two days, finishing at approximately 11am the following morning.
    Many more than a few hundred people would have viewed that post, as anything up to six hundred people are viewing at any one time.
    Knowing how strict the moderation is on OTIB, I’m sorry but I don’t believe your claims, even though they are backed by a photograph, which after all is in still time.

    The poster only joined the site in November 2011 and has only posted on two occasions, raising the question of motives behind the post.

  67. January 23, 2012 11:10 am

    Its not always possible to stop the nutters from posting stuff-but there could have been better moderation. And a pro-active stance from the club with zero tolerence of violence or intimidation would have been good idea from the outset. Publishing names and addresses and the implied threats has been a feature of the dirty tricks behind the scenes which hopefully’s behind us.

  68. Richard Lane permalink
    January 23, 2012 11:00 pm

    The club do not run the fans site and that site is well moderated. Some things are bound to go unnoticed at times.
    As for a zero tolerance, I’m sure the club have followed police advice in not mentioning any alledged happenings at AV, for fear of possible copycat scenarios. We all know that a reported act somewhere else leads to copycat crimes, such as joy riding, stoning firemen, obstructing ambulance crews, or rioting.
    Sometimes it’s best not mentioned, which is probably why I was told they had heard nothing but would look into it when I asked.
    I repeat, nobody in a position of authority has released any names or addresses which were not already in the public domain, such as councillors.
    I do believe that your perception of dirty tricks are misguided. They are based on the fact that people have voiced their anger and frustration due to the actions of those opposed to all the developments around Ashton. They are reactions to the oppositions actions. Please give examples of so called dirty tricks, which happened prior to any action taken in opposition.
    Did people think that supporters of the new stadium, or the developers, would welcome a small group of objectors delaying the stadium with the tactics they’ve used to date, without any reaction?

  69. January 24, 2012 12:59 am

    The local residents have every right to object to what is being dumped on their doorsteps.
    The greenbelt being destroyed is what they face, and they have retained their dignity despite your ‘supporters of the new stadium and their reactions’.
    Mobilising a mob to further your cause has not been a good democratic move. Councillors may have buckled under the threats and given the expat his monster hypermarket but the residents who have everything to lose have stood firm.
    The gagging order is in place to enable the JR to procede without the targeting of objectors and their families. Mr Lane (or your doppelganger) you are in denial.

  70. Father Abraham permalink
    January 24, 2012 9:43 am

    I see that the shadowy Jon Pontin has finally stepped into the limelight in the Evening Post today.

    This is the Labour luvvie who assured Steve Lansdown that there would no problem building a stadium on the Green Belt because the Labour government would make sure the land was removed from the Green Belt well before the planning application would have to go in.

    He then got Lansdown to pay £4.5m upfront, and £4.5m more if the stadium got planning permission in December 2007 for land that his company had recently valued internally at £900,000, and which had a market value as agricultural land of about £90,000!

    Except, of course, he didn’t check with the locals and both North Somerset and Bristol City Council objected to the land in question being taken out of the Green Belt (with cross party support) and then the South West Regional Spatial Strategy which was going to take the land out of the Green Belt was cancelled by the new Coalition government.

    He also didn’t check that his much-loved Labour government had passed parliamentary legislation allowing local residents to apply for Town Green status to protect land from unwanted development. You would have thought that as author of a book on the environment and sustainability as well as being vice-chair of the Scumacher Society that he might have known about laws protecting green space?

    Now its too late to save the stadium, he suddenly appears in the paper talking about the benefits of an elected mayor not being a politician….wonder why?

  71. Richard Lane permalink
    January 24, 2012 10:13 pm


    I take it when you refer to mobilising a mob, you refer to supporters turning up and acting dignified at the council house. This was a reaction, (as I said) to the original mob, who turned up and lambasted and abused the councillors in the first meeting, the same way the TVG supporters shouted and generally showed themselves up at the TVG meeting.

    The greenbelt is not being destroyed. A small section of land that used to be a landfil site, which never was greenbelt in the first place, which was registered to pacify certain politicians, is going to be transformed into something that will benefit many many more people than the few who might use it occasionally. And it’ll be a darn site better than that which is there at present.

    Dignified residents? Like the one that got up and interupted the councillors on many occasions with his outbursts and bragging about how he’d been pissed many a time on that site. People shouting at councillors? waving plans and calling out, dignified? calling people liars, claiming dirty tricks, dignified?

    As I asked you before ” Please give examples of so called dirty tricks, which happened prior, to any action taken in opposition”, you seem to have ommitted your answer again.
    This is not unusual for one of the dignified chosen few, who decides instead to throw some more unfounded allegations into the fray.

    Funny I thought the gagging order was in place to protect the identity of the applicant. The same applicant that can’t get legal aid because a neighbouring council might be paying a percentage to the costs, unless they change their minds.

  72. January 25, 2012 7:35 am

    There you go mr in denial lane, bit of evidence of land profit uplift from £90 thousand quid to £9million quid or whatever Pontins profitmongers put on it.
    The is it or isn’t it green belt needs to go to bed- it is green belt end of.

    The denial gets more sad. The threats aimed at the planning committee from the mob were such that Jankers stepped in with a public appeal to cease the threats. The opposers have all along engaged in friendly banter without the bricks.

Comments are closed.