Skip to content

Judge Underhill decides: AshtonVale JR must proceed…

April 3, 2012

This judge knows his stuff. He’s already made decisions that have set a precedent and become case law in similar circumstances.
So when presented with the facts that the previous applicant was part of a joint application then there’s no question that the case must continue. After all, why would it affect the case with a new applicant any more than the case proceeding with the old applicant, should he not have stood down? The time limit deadline was relevant but as a joint application then it could continue with another name says the judge, no new application for JR needed.
And the positively bizarre nature of the original applicants volte-face was noted by the judge, although remarking that there is a valid acceptance of the original applicants decision to stand down.

This really is the most disquieting aspect for me of the judges summary. Because another letter apparently penned by the anonymous applicant that hadn’t been published yet is there in full and makes for sinister reading. Although there’s been tongue in cheek banter over kidnapping etc clearly the letter and subsequent interview with the applicant show a person subjected to stress. We may never find out the mysterious goings on that have caused this. But what we have found out is that another witness has testified to police of intimidation and that an unnamed businessman had made approaches to the applicants family. This is in the judges summary. That’s enough for me to have scandalous behaviour written all over it. Despite the gagging order. There’s an increasingly shady and nasty undercurrent to this case.
The judge has been very clear that the new applicant is anonymous even gender unpublished in order to prevent intimidation.
It’s unbelievable that such lengths have to be taken to anonymise and protect witnesses and the path of justice, over a planning application.
If this was happening in Moscow, Sicily or downtown New York there’d be cries of gangsters.
Think about it. This is 21st century Bristol, it’s time the city leaders got a grip on who they want to be associated with.

  1. thebristolblogger permalink
    April 3, 2012 7:18 am

    Steve Lansdown was also considered an unreliable witness in the judgement.

  2. April 3, 2012 7:46 am

    The judge described lansdowns statement as …’in another context there certainly would be elements of it (statement)that might be subject of fruitful cross examination.’

  3. April 3, 2012 8:15 am

    The commments attributed by today’s evening toast to lansdown show an appalling lack of respect for legal process and local residents. Although cheap talk like the ‘law of the land is an ass’ is an old cliche, the true unhinged nature of this man is out in the open. Talk of ‘gloves being off’ and ‘not caring what people think’ and giving local residents a ‘rude awakening’ is exactly what is not needed when intimidation has been so clearly demonstrated by the judge that:

    it would be intolerable if a legitimate challenge to the decision of a public authority were able to be defeated by improper pressure of the kind alleged.’

  4. Bobs permalink
    April 3, 2012 11:26 am

    So – with his “gloves are off” comment following a judgment acknowledging his sides threats, intimidation and bribery, just what does he plan to do ?

    In exactly what way have his gloves been on to date ?

  5. harryW permalink
    April 3, 2012 11:29 am

    Maybe he intends to leave finger prints next time.

  6. harryW permalink
    April 3, 2012 11:42 am

    Actually – the gloves are probably those he wears when driving the diggers. He had pinhibit his gloves as he thought he was getting the diggers in. Now there is no prospect of diggers for at least some time, he has taken his gloves off.

    I think this is what he must mean.

  7. Bobs permalink
    April 3, 2012 12:03 pm

    Obviously we cannot know who paid for the £50,000 bribe to the old applicant. But I can imagine that whoever did is feeling very angry at such a waste of money and will want to make as many wild angry threats as they can.

  8. April 3, 2012 4:30 pm

    Fingerless mitts?

  9. Richard Lane permalink
    April 3, 2012 10:18 pm

    I felt sure there was always going to be a JR, with the judge originally saying he was hankering towards it. Also from what I heard/read, that the legal profession would benefit from it being used as a test case, for future cases.

    The only thing I would question is, why this substitute applicant was not used in the first place, when the health of the first applicant was cause for concern?

    Is the substitute applicant eligable for the same level of legal aid, when it appears from everything said, that the first applicant was used to enable legal aid to be obtained?

    We have a situation where people from outside of the area, such as Peter Crispin, have decided to help the local residents in their fight to stop the stadium. They have gambled with their decision to go for the JR, with what appears to be the possible loss of the very thing they so say wanted, ie: the TVG, now in question, because of that gamble.

    I’m sure there are now many residents very worried, that he’s cocked it right up.

    Sacredspring. The gender is mentioned in the Evening Post.
    I wonder who she is? Oh no! BobS will have me down as seeking out her address now and other sinister goings on, probably threatening her.

    There is a very important word used by the judge in the section of his statement that you selected, it is the word “alledged”. Nothing is proven, they are allegations. But it’s safer to say ok, if they are true, then the case should procede. In that respect there is nothing to argue about. However, if they are not true, or they’ve been exagerated, or taken from off the cuff spontanious irrational rants on a website, in an attempt to portray something that is not reality, then the judge has used an assumption, rather than facts to come his decision.

    Roll on the JR, unless there’s another compromise in the offing.

  10. Richard Lane permalink
    April 3, 2012 11:01 pm

    Ashton Vale Residents In Revolt

    Local residents in Ashton Vale have reacted angrily to the news that, SAVE, led by former councillor and Headley Park resident Peter Crispin, has been awarded the Judicial review which could see their last chance of keeping some green spaces for their recreational use on ashton vale fields. The landowner has pledged to get the use of his land leaving the residents without their TVG.

    Although there are some 50 acres available to the residents, (through black bridge), they don’t like passing the travellers site to get to the idylic rural retreat with it’s babbling brook, natural fauna, safe haven for kids to make dens, abundant wildlife and wide open spaces, they would prefer the use of what would have been the TVG if it weren’t for Crispins involvement.

    One neighbour said, “I used to support Crispin and Co but now he’s cocked this right up, I wish he’d never poked his nose in. Why these outsiders need to get involved with us I don’t know. It’s now possible we’ll get our larger supermarket selling goods to use on the TVG but nowhere to use them, I feel used and let down now and I’m think of contacting Mr Lansdown personally to ask him to reconsider a compromise”.

    Ashton Alf. (formerly Stillwaters)

  11. Bobh permalink
    April 4, 2012 9:11 am

    What a pile of Lane guff again,what makes anyone believe that SL and his mates would not have tried to get the land that has TG status anyway.
    Nothing has changed,all that has happened is that SL has just declaired his intent prior to the JR happening,he would have waited to after the JR before coming out with his warnings and threats.
    After the JR he would known better what his “get my land back” plans would have been.
    The residents have lost nothing because at this moment as far as SL is concerned they have nothing,he has no intention to have half of his land “stolen”.
    Lane sounds more like the Evening Post every time he opens his gob.

  12. bobs permalink
    April 4, 2012 10:27 am

    Rich – you repeatedly claim that you are not a shameful, bare-faced liar but not you are inventing press releases from imaginary people.

    You are as shameless as those who bribed, threatened and coerced the original applicant.

  13. April 4, 2012 7:24 pm

    I like the way Peter Crispin is singled out by the Lansdown propaganda machine as a non-resident.
    What about the non-resident landowner who doesn’t even reside in the country?
    I’m also waiting for the council response to the disturbing nature of the original JR applicants letters and circumstances. Maybe social services are looking into it who knows.

    Mr Lane, its no joke that witnesses in a planning application have to be given full anonymous protection.

  14. thebristolblogger permalink
    April 4, 2012 10:12 pm

    The High Court is also so concerned about the identity of the applicant being leaked that both the city council and Vence have had to supply names of their staff to the court who will know the identity of the applicant so any leak can be traced.

  15. harryW permalink
    April 5, 2012 10:10 am

    There is a history of anonymity orders for applicants in Court cases but it remains very rare.

    However, I think this is the first time that a Judge has expressly made an Order which recognises that the respondent and interested parties cannot be trusted with an anonymity order.

    Hang your heads in shame Bristol City Council and Vence Plc.

  16. Anthony B permalink
    April 5, 2012 3:41 pm

    Bristol Blogger – are you proud of your actions which led to people being directed to the identity of the application for the first Judicial Review being identified?

  17. harryW permalink
    April 5, 2012 5:43 pm

    Anthony B – this is not remotely true. No one identified the Applicant from the Bristol Blogger. The only person who claimed (untruthfully) to have identified anyone from the letter was Mike Ford (BCFCFinkerr) who only claimed to have identified the stepson and not the applicant.

    The reason why the applicant was identified was down to actions of people claiming to be Stadium Supporters putting his identity on Twitter last November.

    The people doorstepping the Applicant and who offered him money to drop out claimed to be working for BCFC and did these actions prior to the Bristol Blogger post.

    Further, Ian Onions BEP claimed to have door stepped the Applicant many times before the Bristol Blogger released the redacted letter.

    What the Bristol Blogger did do was reveal that the Applicant was being held as a Ward of Court, a matter known to the Council and BCFC but not hidden by them.

    so Anthony B – are you proud of knowing nothing about nothing ?

  18. Richard Lane permalink
    April 5, 2012 9:05 pm


    You ask “what makes anyone believe that SL and his mates would not have tried to get the land that has TG status anyway”
    Answer = Because to proceed, they would have had to accept the registraion of the TVG as part of the site. Otherwise the site required for the stadium, being part of the original application would not be released for development, if there were a legal case still ongoing to determine the scope of the TVG.

    So, when you open your fat gob again and come out with more guff, see if you can put your tiny brain cell into operation first.


    Still not managed to determine a tongue in cheek statement, from a press release, eh!
    If in doubt attack the poster.

    You still haven’t porven or even tried to prove any of you claims against me b ut still come out with them. Until you do, or even have an attempt at it, keep the insults for the nice people of Ashton vale, which you certainly are not one of.

    So, here we go again.
    Proof of lying please.
    Proof that I’ve threatened anybody.
    and proof that I’ve slandered anyone.

  19. Richard Lane permalink
    April 5, 2012 9:07 pm

    Is there dissent in the ranks?

  20. Richard Lane permalink
    April 5, 2012 9:14 pm


    How can you claim your statement to be true, when he never revealed the persons identity?
    “The only person who claimed (untruthfully) to have identified anyone from the letter was Mike Ford (BCFCFinkerr) who only claimed to have identified the stepson and not the applicant”.
    Your statement cannot be classed as truthful, as it is only based on an assumption.

  21. thebristolblogger permalink
    April 5, 2012 9:23 pm

    BCFCFinker also “proved” the document originated from Stephen McNamara didn’t he? He’s not exactly Sherlock Holmes is he? I’d treat his conclusions with a great deal of scepticism if I were you.

  22. bobs permalink
    April 5, 2012 10:06 pm

    Now I understand that nothing you ever said was meant to be taken seriously Richard, it all makes sense. I was struggling to understand how anyone could say so much that was so obviously wrong.

    I hadn’t realised you were a spoof. Are you an Art Student or an alternative comedian ?

  23. Richard Lane permalink
    April 5, 2012 11:13 pm


    You struggle to understand anything.
    So let’s have a look at what BobS thinks.

    1. That there are two of me.
    2. That I’m Chinese.
    3. That I’m employed by the club.
    4. That I have colleagues.
    5. That I’m a spoof.
    6. That i’m either an art student or an alternative comedian.
    7. That I slander people.
    8. That I threaten people.
    9. That I’m a lyer.

    You are wrong on all counts, as usual.
    On points 7, 8 and 9, I have challenged you to prove your claims. You have again failed to do so, reverting tirelessly to continuing your personal attacks.
    If and that’s a very large IF. you had any credability at all, you most certainly have none now.

    Arguing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon.
    No matter if I were a grand master, you’d knock over the pieces, shit on the board and strut around cockily showing off to your mates, as if you’d won.

    Now do us all a favour and prove your claims.

  24. thebristolblogger permalink
    April 6, 2012 10:26 am

    There’s no Bristol Blogger Twitter account.

  25. April 6, 2012 4:53 pm

    Anthony B you seem to have been rather keen to make these tenous connections in identifying the applicant. I’m not aware of these links.
    You appear to be trying to deflect attention from the fact that the person was hunted down by the businessman with bribery offered and the stadium supporting local rag was doorstepping him. They obviously had their own motives and resources for identifying him whether or not your theory has any credence.

  26. Anthony B permalink
    April 6, 2012 7:28 pm

    Sacredspring – for the avoidance of doubt, I do not believe any of my postings will allow you to identify the applicant.

    However, the Bristol Blogger did post as I have described and I’m not sure why I appear to be lambasted. Perhaps, the Bristol Blogger should be held accountable for his actions too.

    However, you seem to be in each other’s pockets.

  27. April 6, 2012 9:33 pm

    …and I’m not sure why I appear to be lambasted.

    Because you appear on a site that is obviously not pro-trashing the green belt and then proceed to describe at great length how to identify the poor man that has had his anonymity compromised not by the greenbelt campaigners but by the dodgy developers, bent bribing businessmen and local rag.

    If you continue to be an idiot you will get removed just like your thoughtless comments have.

  28. Anthony B permalink
    April 6, 2012 10:56 pm

    Comment removed

    Talk of identity of individuals = ****BAN****

  29. Anthony B permalink
    April 8, 2012 12:31 pm

    How about another person who is anti-stadium, anti-supermarket and pro-village green offering money “cash in hand”?

Comments are closed.