Skip to content

Greenbelt stakes donkey chase

March 14, 2012

Leading contender for this years national hunt world cup donkey chase sponsored by BetSteve is ‘Kaput Star’ in the red colours of the JCB Landowner stables.
Held as usual for the last millennium or at least 20 years on the breathtaking vista of the green meadows of Ashton Vale, this years event is set to be a nail biter. Things were looking bright for Kowpat Star’s entourage a couple of weeks ago after recovering from a fall and as opponents were kidnapped. But then the TVG Handicap Hurdle once again was filled with worthy local contenders. Look out for ‘Dump Truck’ at 7:5 in the Goonsey Stakes.

The B&Q Plastic Shed Scrumpy grandstand will again be half-filled with non-residents from the UK and across the world baying for their hero and as usual willing to throw good money on watching losers.

  1. March 15, 2012 7:18 am

    New stadium cheerleaders beware! Checkout the prices for tickets and lunch at Cheltenham
    Table for 4 in the panoramic grandstand at £605 /head (+vat sorry sold out). This is where the bankers bonus merchants hang out and what the speculators are gambling on raking in the cash at a new stadium.

  2. Richard Lane permalink
    March 16, 2012 4:04 am

    Coming up on the outside is that old warhorse Pete Crispin riding the rank outsider Pip Sheard, oh no he’s fallen off.

    We have a new leader, it’s old red trousers, oh no he’s another faller must have better things to do now.

    BobS has made a late run to lead the pack, but he’s struggling to get over the fences at this Ashton vale novices race.

    The anciant Marriner hasn’t been heard of for a while but he’s been doing a lot of good work behind the scenes to get his stable ready for the final furlong.

    That famous old jockey Willy is going great guns on Big Blogger but has a problem keeping up with the real thoroughbreds.

    Tony Dyer riding little HarryT has fixed the odds (he would wouldn’t he) he was going well at first but has faltered recently and is now miles behind Sextones knowledge in second.

    But at the final stages winning by a country mile is, Stevie Boy, riding Popular Opinion, to have the final laugh after their three year
    battle to be allowed to run.

  3. Richard Lane permalink
    March 16, 2012 4:14 am


    Are you perhaps scaremongering, with your comparisons between a once a year race meeting and a fortnightly held football match?

    My ticket for football and lunch is about £27, bit different than £605 you like to portray it might cost.

  4. March 16, 2012 8:59 am

    Laney Boy riding worn out Old Nag bringing up the rear.
    Extended Ban out in front following stewards enquiry after Breaking Rules on Extreme Boring Comment.
    TVG Frontrunner has been nobbled by the Landowner stable, another stewards enquiry.
    Dump Truck Sexton gets caught in the mire, losing by a brass neck.

  5. thebristolblogger permalink
    March 16, 2012 9:03 am

    “Sextone’s knowledge”? Would fit on the back of a postage stamp.

    Interesting that Dickie’s Bristol City idols are a chief executive and a money man. Oh the romance of the beautiful game …

  6. March 16, 2012 11:02 am


    Otib Yobbo in the 3:20 Greed Merchants stakes sponsored by BetSteve has been disqualified due to excessive use of the whip.
    Cook the Books from the Sheik Babs Janker Stud has foot-in-mouth disease so don’t waste any cash on this loser.

  7. thebristolblogger permalink
    March 16, 2012 2:03 pm

    I can’t get the Peter Holt Handicap out my head … No doubt he’ll be along to accuse of homophobic disablism?

  8. bobs permalink
    March 16, 2012 2:04 pm

    Rich Lane posting between 2:06am and 4:14am !!

    Do you think they have contracted out his posts to someone in China ? That might explain the complete lack of grasp of factual reality.

  9. March 16, 2012 8:39 pm

    Holiday in Barbados again or is Guernsey in a different time zone?
    Bad luck to all the punters chucking their lot in with Kaput Star.

  10. Richard Lane permalink
    March 17, 2012 12:04 am

    Now people are commenting about my sleeping habits, of which none of you know a damn thing about.

    Tireless Lane posting well into the night as he’s a busy chap.
    New theory from BobS, not two Lanes but a chinese one now, very clever these Chinese, what will he dream up next?.
    BobS claiming factual reality, that’s a new one.
    When are you going to retract those lies and slanderous statements about me?
    I’ll even let you off if you offer one sane explanation or incident where I have threatened anybody, here’s your chance, now prove it.

  11. thebristolblogger permalink
    March 17, 2012 12:04 am

    Dickie spent two hours writing that shit?

  12. Richard Lane permalink
    March 17, 2012 12:12 am

    Bristol Blogger
    Those people are not my idols, you are.
    I’ve always admired the man that can lower the tone of a debate with childish insulting comments, with the regularity of a sneeze during a common cold. The warm feeling that comes over me when I see a new post from the logger, is similar to the effect of ten pints of Guiness and a curry.
    Did you take a degree in your chosen occupation, or is your repulsiveness a natural talent?

  13. Richard Lane permalink
    March 17, 2012 12:19 am

    Laney boy brings up the rear, in order to pick up the shit that you and others leave behind when you talk. It’s very good for the roses but nothing else.

    Who are you referring to as OTIB Yobbo?

    Any news about when Tony called in the stewards of the EU with his complaint?

  14. Richard Lane permalink
    March 17, 2012 12:20 am

    Well bugger me if it’s not 12.20am, off to bed or I might get told off.

  15. Richard Lane permalink
    March 17, 2012 12:24 am

    Of course I spent two hours writing that shit, I’m not as gifted as you at writing shit, I have to think a bit.

  16. bobs permalink
    March 17, 2012 9:40 am

    Rich – you underestimate yourself. Everything you write is shit. You seem to have no regard for fact or truth at all

  17. Tony Dyer permalink
    March 17, 2012 7:48 pm

    Richard Lane Says;
    “My only refernces to “facts” as you highlight, refer to the phone survey being carried out with people from Stroud to Street, are you saying those are not facts? Because if you are saying I have made that up and they are not facts, then you are lying.”

    Your original comment that I responded to said;
    “I believe the other councillors were led to that decision by Simon [Cllr Rayner], who was working with the fabricated figures from Tony on retail and the traffic figures, supplied by Tesco’s transport consultants”

    Except that the figures were not fabricated, they were taken from retail studies produced by the developer’s own retail consultants and/or by independent retail consultants commission by the local councils. You effectively admit this later in the same thread;

    “You certainly had the desired effect in persuading Simon that the figures you selected to present from those surveys warranted further investigation.”

    You then immediately continue “The fact that there were results from a phone survey of 1,000 people, taken from the people of Stroud Glos, to Street in Somerset, to determine the shopping habits of people in South Bristol, leads me to think that they’re not wholly accurate.”

    And this is where you have, purpose or unintentionally, misled people. You know full well that the survey you are referring to was the telephone survey conducted as part of the research for the Bristol Citywide Retail Study by DTZ. I know you know this because you posted this extract from the officer’s report on my blog;

    “”In relation to the DTZ study, the conclusions as to quantitative need were drawn in part from a telephone survey of 1500 people from a wide catchment area, stretching from Wells and Street in Somerset up to Stroud in Gloucestershire and Chippenham in Wiltshire.”

    That was part of a comment you made as part of a long discussion on my blog in which you tried to discredit the DTZ survey by making several claims each of which turned out to be false, and in which it was clearly explained to you that the telephone survey was only part of the information collected for that particular study.

    However, whatever the merits of the telephone survey for the DTZ study, it doesn’t make any difference to the figures used in my submission to the planning committee for the simple reason that I did not use the DTZ Retail Study figures.

    So if you are saying that the figures selected from the retail surveys for my submission included results from a phone survey taken from the people of Stroud Glos, to Street in Somerset, to determine the shopping habits of people in South Bristol then yes, those are not facts and yes you have made that up.

    I have no need to accuse you of lying Rich, your own comment history is enough to demonstrate how fragile your grasp of the facts is.

  18. Richard Lane permalink
    March 18, 2012 1:07 am


    I have challenged you many times to prove your stupid accusations against me.
    Instead of taking that opportunity to prove your accusations of lying, slander. or threats towards posters anywhere, you have chosen to continue with your personal attcks against me.
    From that only one conclusion can be drawn. That is that all of your accusations are lies, it is you that has been slanderous. I cannot accuse you of threatening people but all other claims you have made are only true about yourself.
    I’ll give you another chance. Provide the evidence of me lying, slandering someone, or threatening someone.

  19. Richard Lane permalink
    March 18, 2012 1:58 am

    So in this following statement you admit that you were selective with the figures you used in your submision to the council planning meeting, when you state “it doesn’t make any difference to the figures used in my submission to the planning committee for the simple reason that I did not use the DTZ Retail Study figures”.

    This raises the question of why you did not use those figures, or in fact, all of the figures available to you when fabricating your presentation. And if as suspected, that presentation was slanted against the new supermarket intentionally.

    So the result is that, you have compiled a submision of figures to the council planning committee, using figures from different surveys/studies and you have decided to omit or not use certain figures in your conclusion and presentation. This categorically confirms that you were selective in your fabrication of that presentation in an attempt to portray a negative retail study, using only the figures that you chose to select.

    No doubt you will twist things and wriggle like a worm with your next response, making snide remarks and questioning whether I have been to sleep and have a sound mind. But I’ll let people make their own minds up of how you have been selective with certain facts in your interpretation of historical events.

  20. March 18, 2012 10:18 am

    The monster hypermarket will damage existing trading at historic high streets of East st and North St. That is an established fact.

  21. Tony Dyer permalink
    March 18, 2012 10:20 am

    I note that you have gone from trying to criticise me for using figures based on a telephone survey that covered an area from Street to Stroud to now criticising me for not using figures based on a telephone survey from Street to Stroud.

    Likewise having moaned about me using figures from three different surveys (in fact I referenced 6 separate retail studies), you are now complaining that I didn’t use more.

    To answer the question you say has been raised about why I didn’t use figures from the DTZ study in my submission.

    The DTZ study from 2006/07 is of course a study that you repeatedly criticised, falsely claiming that it was based on data from 1997. Being citywide it looked at retail provision across the city not just South Bristol which again you criticised it for. When I informed you that there was a new study being produced which would concentrate on South Bristol you claimed that you would welcome it as it would no doubt provide more accurate information about South Bristol. Now you seem to be criticising me for using figures from this more recent South Bristol focused independent retail study but not the older citywide independent retail study. Another u-turn.

    Given that the DTZ study concluded that there was no quantative need for additional convenience retail in South Bristol, which, of course, is why you were so keen to try and denigrate it, I am not sure why you seem to think that my not including figures from it was because it would have somehow supported the case for an expansion of convenience retail.

    However, there is one other, very important reason why I didn’t include turnover figures for the Sainsbury’s in Winterstoke Road from the DTZ study in my submission. This is because the study didn’t include figures for individual stores. If you had spent as much time reading the DTZ study as you have spent criticising it you would have realised this and saved us all from reading yet another one of your rants based on fabricated facts.

    As for figures for other studies – which ones do you think I have left out? Let me guess – you don’t actually know if there were any other relevant studies but just decided to include another throwaway line with no factual basis designed to cast suspicion. A bit like how you claimed the independent inspector had a history of granting town green applications despite not actually know how often she has done so.

    The reality is that whichever figures I had included in my submission you would have found some excuse, however flimsy, to criticise them for reasons that are obvious to everybody reading this.

    People are indeed perfectly able to distinguish which one of us is responding with factual information to ill-informed rants, and which one of us is wriggling like a worm caught on a hook, having twisted fully 180 degrees so that they are now complaining about the opposite to what they were complaining about just 24 hours earlier.

  22. Richard Lane permalink
    March 20, 2012 12:59 am

    Just as I thought, a wriggle a claim a reference to facts but not one.
    You claim you didn’t use the DTZ figures in your presentation, so I questioned you as to why you would choose to ignore certain figures for your own presentation, when we all know the answer. It was to provide a negative prediction of the retail effects that Sainsbury’s would have on the area.
    The thing is, you deny using the DTZ figures in one statement, but then confirm that you did use them, as they were part of the city councils own retail study.
    Tony Dyer says: “they were taken from the reports produced by the consultants hired by the developers themselves, and by Bristol City Council and its neighbouring authorities, and the independent retail consultants commissioned by them – in particular the South Bristol Retail Study”.
    So we can assume that you are shall we say, being economical with the truth.

    You also say “In fact, when the second Sainsburys application went in, the new retail figures from both the developers’ consultants and from the council’s independent retail consultants were closer to the figures presented in my submission to the first planning committee”.
    That’s because they included the turnover figures for Park furnishers, which were not included in the first surveys or presentation. Something that would have a dramatic effect on the non consumable figures that you were trying to portray.

    You complain about me criticising you for not using more, then not using enough figures from retail surveys. That was not my point and you are deflecting from it. My point is that you only used certain figures from these surveys/studies, in an attempt to confuse the planning committee, painting a worse scenario, it duly worked.

    If People have managed to read your deviating posts without falling into long periods of sleep. They will realise that those posts have been designed to confuse the issues. This is exactly the same tactic used in your fabricated presentation, when using figures from various sources, selected intentionally to raise concerns.

  23. Richard Lane permalink
    March 20, 2012 1:08 am

    Any chance of proving your claims yet? Or shall we just assume that you can’t, and have gone back to your cave to think of another insult or accusation?
    Come on Bob, do the secent thing.

  24. March 20, 2012 8:19 am

    That there will be retail damage to East St and North St resulting from a Giant hypermarket at Ashton Gate is an established fact. There is no argument over this fact.
    There may be some dispute over whether the damage to existing trading is significant damage or disastrous damage. The historic trading streets have been identified in all the local plans as vulnerable.

  25. Tony Dyer permalink
    March 20, 2012 10:03 am


    The DTZ citywide retail study is not the South Bristol Retail Study (produced by GVA). They are two entirely separate studies that used two entirely different telephone surveys to inform their results.

    Not sure what more I can say as it is obvious that you and I appear to be speaking entirely different languages.

    The planning committee I made the public submission in question to, sat almost two years ago, and its decision was superceded by another committee that sat over a year ago. If you want to waste your time digging up fantastical arguments about it then carry on. It is increasingly clear that you are perfectly capable of having an argument with yourself and at least that way you won’t have to worry about the other side resorting to the use of facts from the real world.

  26. bobs permalink
    March 21, 2012 8:22 am

    Rich – What claims ? What have you invented now ?

Comments are closed.