Skip to content

Too much Cook barking spoils the Fudge.

January 31, 2012

I say the Evening Toasted got its funny headline mixed up -its not the Ashton Court dogwalkers who are barking mad its that chump Simon Cook the Deputy Dawg leader of the city.
http://www.bristol247.com/2012/01/30/bristol-council-urges-compromise-on-ashton-vale-town-green-49489/

Why’s the man going on about compromise when all along he’s had no intention of budging from his position.
Which is:

1. Build the monster hypermarket (mmm£££) on the old Ashton Gate never mind the traffic chaos, poisoned air, danger to schoolkid pedestrians, and destruction of the historic shopping streets of Bedminster. Enable the planning committee to vote impartially as he wishes.

2. Helpfully give the supermarket greedmerchants a chunk of council land ££ in secret to make the monster happen.

£. Promise the City the world cup cos the supermarket enables the £££ for the £££ new stadium on cheapy greenbelt, which the mega££ millionaire done some deals on. Never mind local residents-they can move, they only live next to a tip anyhow.

4. Ignore all the evidence of retail damage pollution, job lies etc etc.

5. Ignore the expensive Town Green investigation; delay and stall the PROW till they Cook up a new fudge.

6. Bleat on about compromise when the pack of cards collapses and he faces a JR.

Nothing personal barking-mad Simon Cook, but ahem, time for walkies?

Advertisements
35 Comments
  1. Richard Lane permalink
    January 31, 2012 8:47 pm

    Sacredspring

    You really fooled me then. I thought for one moment, you were being serious and that you actually believed this pile of pigs pooh.
    I then realised that this comment was the usual attack on anyone in authority or anybody that actually wants to get things done in our city. An attack that can only be seen for what it is. A supporter of the TVG (only because of your hatred of so many things) trying to scupper any thought of a compromise, which is what any reasonable person wants.
    That’s how this will again be seen by the general public.

    At this point in time, I’d rather there were a compromise, although on the face of it, there has only been one side compromising.
    We all know the people opposing the supermarket don’t want to see a compromise, because if the stadium doesn’t happen the supermarket doesn’t. If there are no greenbelt developments, then that would appear to help those worried about their existing rural idylic locations, ie: house values.
    Then there are the outsiders of AV stirring up the pooh, such as Pip Sheard, Peter Crispin, Tess Green and the other greenies along with GF.
    We all know these actions are delaying tactics, so where will the compromise come from?

  2. Bobs permalink
    January 31, 2012 10:37 pm

    Okay Rich.

    What is your compromise offer ? And it better be better than the status quo. What is it that you and Simon Cook have to offer the people
    of Ashton Vale ?

  3. thebristolblogger permalink
    January 31, 2012 10:38 pm

    Dickie. Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t “the outsiders of AV stirring up the pooh, such as Pip Sheard, Peter Crispin, Tess Green and the other greenies along with GF” all live considerably nearer Ashton Vale than you do?

    What gives you the right to shit stir and comment about Ashton Vale? Is there some sort of special dispensation in place for obsessive self-employed builders from Knowle?

  4. February 1, 2012 12:07 am

    The issue is whether there has ever been any option of compromise on the table up to now or in the future.
    Especially when you’ve got a mega-rich landowner used to getting what he wants and a star-struck councillor who also doesn’t live in the communities that are going to be ripped apart. Why should anyone round here support a deal that will be the kiss of death to so many people?

  5. Bobs permalink
    February 1, 2012 8:11 am

    But I want to now what is being offered by Mr Cook and all. Other than “drop your claim now and we won’t make it worse for you”.

  6. Richard Lane permalink
    February 1, 2012 9:10 am

    BobS
    The compromise has already been on the table for a long time. It’s where the people of A V get 22 acres of someone elses land, nicely developed into a wetland area and TVG.
    The other option, as I see it, is to go back to square one, until the land owners get what they want after another couple of years wrangling and the residents get sod all.

    Big Logger
    The difference between myself and those others mentioned, is that they are actually affecting the situation with their actions, rather than commenting on the situation like myself. I did think that someone of your superior intelligence might have grasped that.
    Could you give us an insight into where you live and why that gives you the right to comment on everything that happens in other areas?

  7. Bobs permalink
    February 1, 2012 9:20 am

    What is this obsession with stadium supporters wanting to know where all the objectors live ???

    Do you want to add him to Rob Fs map ?

  8. Deano permalink
    February 1, 2012 11:20 am

    “The difference between myself and those others mentioned, is that they are actually affecting the situation with their actions, rather than commenting on the situation like myself.”

    So you are saying that all your commenting has not “affected” the situation at all and that you have taken no action to try and help the stadium get built?

    Yeah, right.

  9. ChrisU permalink
    February 1, 2012 1:06 pm

    I think Sacred Spring has summarised the situation nicely.
    There has never been a compromise available at any point in the saga. For a compromise to occur, you would have to have two equal sides, which of course is what the BEP, BCFC and the council have pretended all along. In reality you have on one side, the people with all the money and the power and on the other side some people who are adept at using the law of the land to hold that money and power in check. The only compromise they can offer is to relinquish the use of the law and let the money and power rip.

    At no point has anyone from the Council or BCFC really offered a compromise simply because they do not believe they need to. In the end they think that their power and money will get them what they want and they are probably right. So why should residents not use all legal force available to them until that point occurs?

    I find Mr Cook’s obsessive reference to the “lone single resident” as unnecessarily threatening. Surely if they have something to say to the person bringing the action they should write to him in private? What he is really saying is “Look you silly little man, don’t you know how important I am? Don’t you know who my friends are”. Compromise is as far from his mind as it ever was.

    And Rich – Not sure setting up a petition in support of the original Tesco store qualifies as “Commenting” rather than “Acting”.

  10. Richard Lane permalink
    February 1, 2012 5:51 pm

    BobS
    I was only batting the ball back in BBs court, after his reference to where I live. I don’t give a toss where he lives but he seems to think I have no right to an opinion though he has.

    Chris Uttley
    We all know of the residents actions and use of the law. What we don’t know or see, is where they have compromised or if they ever intended to compromise. The reality, no matter what excuses come out, are that there has been no compromise whatsoever from the applicants for a TVG, they just don’t want the stadium. You could say that the landowners accepted a compromise when the initial plans for housing were denied on Southlands, they could have appealed. They did compromise however, when they agreed to allow the major part of the land they own to be used as a massive village green.

    As for my petition, I have spoken before about reactive measures taken bu people supporting the proposals. My petition was as a raction to the original petition against plans, set up by Charlie and supported by predominantly people residing in the area(not ward) of Southville.

  11. JamesT permalink
    February 1, 2012 10:07 pm

    “They did compromise however, when they agreed to allow the major part of the land they own to be used as a massive village green.”

    Uh, it was in the plans all along as the area for concrete floodwater runoff pits (sorry, I meant ‘Wetlands Area’) that were required to gain PP on the stadium in that location..

    Same goes for the Southlands. They chanced their arm just trying for PP there – an appeal would’ve been refused very quickly. It’s a flood plain, remember?

  12. February 1, 2012 11:05 pm

    ‘Southlands’ was thrown out by the planners when it was shown to be greedy profiteering on the back of the enabling arguments. Apart from it gobbling up the rest of the floodplain, so its a bit thick to think that a compromise.
    Didn’t see Lansdown or his cronies offering any compromise over the monster Tesco or Sainsbury that the absentee landlord decided he’d dump on south Bristol. In fact there was no talk of compromise from the prize twerp Cook or the landowners till they realised locals had justice on their side and the true facts of the Town Green became apparent to Cook and the green belt concreting firm.

  13. Richard Lane permalink
    February 1, 2012 11:16 pm

    James T
    Thanks for your input, however biassed it may be. The application for housing on southlands was planned to go towards stadium development costs. No housing application would have been refused on the grounds that it is a flood plain alone. It was refused because it was on greenbelt land and did not meet the special criteria for greenbelt development, unlike the stadium, which did. It was put forward as an enabling development going towards the development costs, this was not accepted by the planners. That part of the development was abandoned to facilitate a quicker planning process for the main project, that being the stadium, Remember?
    The landowners still own that land and that of the run off area, which as you rightly say will be turned into a managed wetland area, for the use of the residents and general public, with the whole area, including southlands, used as a TVG, is that not enough?

  14. bobs permalink
    February 2, 2012 8:54 am

    Rich states: “The compromise has already been on the table for a long time. It’s where the people of AV get 22 acres of someone elses land, nicely developed into a wetland area and TVG.”

    So that’s only a slight improvment on the status quo but it would require the Council to return the full TVG agreed at the PROWG meeting as currently the TVG is only about 16 acres and has no proper access – two of the three entrances and the whole of the right of way having been removed by BCC after the PROWG. But there is no offer by Cook to return even this land to the TVG. nor even a recognition that it was removed deceitfully by the Council after voting to include it.

    Not exactly a position of “honour” to start negotiations is it !

  15. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    February 2, 2012 7:34 pm

    Thank goodness for Simon Cook. After the granting of the JR it looked likely we could be short of things to write about and comment on for months. So 3 cheers for Simon. Who said he was a complete waste of space?

  16. bobs permalink
    February 3, 2012 8:24 am

    It is also worth noting that Simon Cook has refused every opportunity to talk to the TVGers and only ever speaks to the Club and the Landowners.

  17. Richard Lane permalink
    February 3, 2012 8:17 pm

    BobS
    I’m at a loss to understand where the 6 acres have dissapeared. Are you saying that you want the BRT route included in the TVG? If so, what advantage would that be. If I’m not mistaken, the residents did not want access to the stadium from Silbury Rd, now it seems that you want access to the stadium, to access the TVG. Please state exactly what you do want for clarity.

  18. bobs permalink
    February 3, 2012 9:26 pm

    No Rich. The BRT was never included. All land south of the BRT was included. The council have removed the Silbury Road entrance to the TVG land. This was the main entrance to the TVG. The council have also removed the whole right of way which runs from that entrance to the south of the BRT and also the exit over the brook to the footpaths to North Somerset, Ashton Court, Long Asthon etc at the other end of the right of way. Its now a TVG island. There is only one small entrance remaining between some houses which previously was little used.

    This land was included in the map which the PROWG approved but then removed prior to the land being added to the Register of Greens. When challenged at the next PROWG, Councillor Abraham denied that any land had been removed. Councillor Harrison said this was not correct but the remainder of the councillors neither heard nor saw any evil.

    This removal of the land after agreeing to include it in the TVG is the number one argument of the Judicial Review. The before and after maps produced by the council show exactly what they have done. And its going to be 1-0 to the TVGers in the judicial review before they get onto the real fight. This is why the council know they are going to lose at least part of the case.

    The council screwing up the original decision and refusing to follow the inspector is arguments 2-5. They must know that they are on dodgy ground on this. Hence Cook’s pathetic behaviour.

  19. Richard Lane permalink
    February 3, 2012 11:18 pm

    BobS
    So as I’ve said where is the missing 6 acres? I thought I was rightin my thinking about what was said to be registered in the TVG meeting, being all the land south of the BRT. There was no mention of land to the east and north of the BRT.
    Looking at the plans, the coloured sections identify the land to the south of the BRT, the green outline identifies the same and it’s only the inclusion of the black lines in one of the plans that could have been mistakenly included in the TVG, by the TVG supporters.
    The plans are admittedly confusing but mainly because the TVG supporters want it that way. At the time of the meeting, it was very apparent what was to be registered, but Tony included yet another set of plans and references to coloured areas on the different set of plans to confuse things further.
    Having said that, if there were access provided from Silbury road by the old garages, along the rear of gardens and into the TVG south of the BRT, would you be happy? And more importantly, are you representative of the TVG applicants in this issue.

  20. Bobs permalink
    February 4, 2012 10:49 am

    Rich

    What bullshit you talk. Are you not embarrassed? There was only one map at the PROWG. it was crystal clear. The theft of this land has enraged most of the locals who did want a compromise. As long as your side continue to use doublespeak and deceit, there can be no compromise. Who wants to deal with people whose words, whose maps and whose resolutions are not worth the paper they are written on.

    And if course I don’t represent the community. It’s a community not a corporation. It doesn’t have a hierarchy.

  21. thebristolblogger permalink
    February 4, 2012 12:44 pm

    Yes, yes, yes. Of course. The confusing maps produced by the city council and its ‘expert’ officers for the PROWG are the fault of a bunch of residents of Ashton Vale and Tony Dyer.

    Did they sneak into the Counts Louse the night before the PROWG meeting and scribble over them with felt tip pens?

    ps. Dickie, the reason I can comment on this matter is because I’ve never been engaged in geographical determinism on this issue. I’ve never dictated who can and can’t be involved on the basis of where they live. You do constantly. Although it seems pro-stadium supporters can live anywhere while those against must reside within some prearranged boundary that exists only in your head.

  22. Richard Lane permalink
    February 4, 2012 7:54 pm

    BobS

    Firstly, I did not ask if you represented the community. I asked if you were representative of the TVG applicants.
    I was trying to see see if your views were that of the applicants. Fortunately the people that are actually representing the TVG applicants aren’t as impulsive as you.

    Now, can you please enlighten the world how someone can steal their own piece of land.
    At the PROWG meeting, it was very clear what section of land was being registered as a TVG. There was no mention of land to the north and east of the BRT being registered, only land to the south of the BRT.

    Perhaps if you read things properly before sounding off, you wouldn’t come accross as such an offensive git.

  23. Richard Lane permalink
    February 4, 2012 8:19 pm

    Bristol liar/blogger

    your following quote puzzles me “the reason I can comment on this matter is because I’ve never been engaged in geographical determinism on this issue”
    On 31st Jan 2012 you wrote, “What gives you the right to shit stir and comment about Ashton Vale? Is there some sort of special dispensation in place for obsessive self-employed builders from Knowle?”
    Perhaps you should think again before writing such utter lies. This also comes from the person that claims to have been following a story for five years that has only been running for three years.

    From the outset I was criticised for not being local to the area when I first set up my petition. I found that rather strange as many people affecting and commenting on the issues are also not local.

  24. thebristolblogger permalink
    February 4, 2012 8:58 pm

    Dickie,

    Do you think – by any chance – I might have been taking the piss out of you?

  25. Richard Lane permalink
    February 4, 2012 9:46 pm

    BB

    Taking the piss! You? Your first paragraph, Yes.

    Your next paragraph, with four sentences on the subject? No.
    Trying to cover your back? Yes.

  26. February 4, 2012 11:16 pm

    Now, can you please enlighten the world how someone can steal their own piece of land.

    Thieving greenbelt and TVG = theft whether you are mega rich and bought it on the cheap or not.

  27. February 4, 2012 11:34 pm

    At the PROWG meeting, it was very clear what section of land was being registered as a TVG

    It isn’t now because the goalposts were moved, duh, that’s why there’s no compromise thicko Lane.

    Why should any sane person give up their ancient rights to access the land that generations of Bristol families have had rights to use? The JR will be the arbiter, and the people will be vindicated in the Great TVG Robbery.

  28. Bobs permalink
    February 5, 2012 9:43 am

    Rich

    Your brave stupidly is unending. I know the council agreed to register all land south of the BRT as TVG. but they have not done that. All the land I have identified as missing is south of the BRT. Your ignorance of the land and the issues is astonishing for one who comments so frequently. How dare you seek to insult my knowledge when you are so blatantly ill informed.

    The land was removed fron the TVG after the resolution. The common rights to that land have been stolen. Those who carried out this deceit are the same as those asking for “honourable” compromise !!

    I don’t think you want compromise at all Rich. Like you colleagues you simply want to continue the war on your neighbours. At the same time you bemoan low attendance at games. Some community club you are !

  29. Richard Lane permalink
    February 5, 2012 9:54 am

    Sacredspring

    You have the nerve to call someone thick, then use contradictory comments such as this: “Thieving greenbelt and TVG = theft whether you are mega rich and bought it on the cheap or not”, surely if something has been bought then it’s not stolen.
    But I forget, your too thick to know that, you’ve got your head buried in the delightful ground at Ashtonvale. Be careful you don’t end up with an infection from the subsoil, perhaps you already have and that explains your distorted view on things.
    The real description of stolen is, taking something that is not yours without the owners permision.
    Such as taking land for the sole use of a few selfish people, which has been legaly purchased with the intentional use of the greater people, whilst ignoring the wishes of the greater majority.

    You are under an illusion with the JR, it will only determine if the councils procedure was carried out the correct way.
    If it finds it didn’t, the whole process will take place again, until the new inspector finds that the application for a TVG, does not meet the requirements for a TVG.

  30. Richard Lane permalink
    February 5, 2012 10:11 am

    BobS
    You are as I’ve previously described an utterly insulting git.
    I do believe that I have asked for an explanation as to where the 6 acres have gone. I am genuinely not aware of the land you refer to, I have not seen the plans you refer to showing this theft as you call it and you have not identified it. As I am not party to this information, please do so, to enlighten me and my stupidity. Provide some link as to where I can gain this information.
    As I’ve said before my only knowledge of any plans are those seen on the aarticle in 24/7.
    For your information, I have no war with the community, I have no colleagues and as I’ve said before I think the only compromise comes from the landowners that are giving their land away in order to progress.

  31. February 5, 2012 11:14 am

    Such as taking land for the sole use of a few selfish people, which has been legaly purchased with the intentional use of the greater people, whilst ignoring the wishes of the greater majority.

    Translation: Mr Lane wants to watch two dozen over-rated millionaire kick lumps out of each other in a giant B&Q plastic shed whilst the rest of the 400,000 inhabitants of the city want to enjoy the remaining greenspace.

  32. Bobs permalink
    February 5, 2012 3:03 pm

    If the JR finds that the council should have registered all the land as TVG the Judge will Order the council to register all of the land as TVG. End of. FACT. No re hearing.

  33. Richard Lane permalink
    February 6, 2012 6:44 am

    After those last two statements from BobS and Sacredspring there’s no need for me to comment.

  34. thebristolblogger permalink
    February 6, 2012 10:27 pm

    Is that a promise?

  35. Richard Lane permalink
    February 7, 2012 6:00 pm

    Bristol Bill
    Yes. That is until they spout another load of hogwash.

Comments are closed.