Skip to content

TVG JR : council backtracking again

June 9, 2012

Must be very early on in a political career that the ambitious ones amongst the gaggle of wannabe leaders are taught the value of a U-turn. A last ditch weapon when all is going wrong and the game nearly over. Just turn your back and run. Good example being Camoron and Osbum the other week when faced with a west country mutiny over the pasty tax. They sensibly heeded our advice, done a complete about-turn and thus avoided the ceremonial ingestion of a red hot pasty via their ample posteriors. Sensible idiots if that’s possible.

Getting back to our council clowns soon to be booted out by the new mayor, they have unveiled their U-turn parting shot at the local residents they long ago turned their backs on.
Here’s the Bristol 24/7 link.

The so-called Silbury-strip, a narrow section of land was previously agreed by the U-turners that they will register it as TVG. Not no more it appears. The council backtracking bods have thrown their last dice, the stab-in-back U-turn. Not for them the simple leggit with tail between legs u turn. Maybe following the advice of a mean and bitter landowner, they now refuse to register even this small strip of land.
But the unkindest cut from council may be a u-turn too late as the JR proceeds next week. Maybe someone forgot to remind them they already threw their towel into the ring.

  1. bobs permalink
    June 9, 2012 9:15 pm

    My bigger concern is the BEP article about how BCC will now abide by the next Inspector’s report (7th June). The BEP only gets its Ashton Vale stories direct from the BCC press office (Peter Holt). So it must have come from him.

    So, why would BCC say they will accept the inspector’s report ? Two possible explanations:

    1. its bullshit. If they don’t like the next report they will ignore it again.

    2. They have some patsy inspector lined up who has already agreed to turn down the TVG.

    What you can be sure about with BCC is that they are not suddenly intending to play fair.

    This whole nonsense with putting in no defence (i.e. no evidence, statements or documents) and saying they will concede the case and then trying to argue a case out of time without any evidence, statements or documents is classic Bristol City Council.

    This is so heading to a 2nd round of Judicial Review.

  2. Bobh permalink
    June 9, 2012 10:12 pm


    I agree with your comments but why does everyone presume a new Inspectors report.
    Surely the JR is only to consider the BCC actions based on the original report.
    There is no question in the J review that has any comment to make on the original report.
    There was a list of orders that were to be considered in the JR from the applicants including the Silbury strip, and if these were not argued against by the BCC then all the Judge had to do was decide on these orders.(no defence then no request for a new report).
    Oddly the Silbury strip is the only piece of land that has not been modified in shape by any activity on the site, it is the only part of which there is no argument that it could be a TVG.
    it is still basically the same as it was on the Tithe map, and has been accessed by the residents since the houses were built next to it. its at the bottom of their gardens.
    I suspect Lansdown was pissed off at the BCC withdrawl from the JR and has pulled the BCC,s strings to make them wriggle, once the BCC have finished he will have to carry the can for the next round.
    You are right the BCC will try every trick in the book because up to this point the BCC and The Post have been made to look stupid, sorry look stupid is to kind, they are stupid.

  3. Richard Lane permalink
    June 10, 2012 1:13 am

    Proper people running the show now, accept compromise or lose all.

    By the way, the application for a new applicant and a new JR were 9 months out of date according to law, so for the council to submit something a little out of date, aint so bad is it? or do you want everything your way? It’s not fair wahhhhh!

  4. bobs permalink
    June 10, 2012 6:39 am


    Don’t be ridiculous. BCFC’s lawyer is the same lawyer as at the start of the whole process. The only reason BCFC have changed from Clarke Willmot to Pinsent Masons is their lawyer has moved firm.

    This – now BCFC will get proper lawyers – nonsense has been repeated soo many times its a joke. Do you really think they went into the initial public inquiry without a full legal team headed by a QC ? Do you really think the TVGers will suddenly be intimitdated by such nonsense, when it has been bleated by your gang from the outset ?

    And no one is saying BCC are late in submitting evidence. It is being said that they put in no defence and said they weren’t contesting the case. That’s what they said in their 4th May press release. You can read it if you like. Even Peter Abraham cannot reinterpet the words in the press release to mean anything different.

  5. June 10, 2012 11:03 pm

    Lane thinks they can rig the judiciary in the same way they rigged the monster stains buries planning committee.

  6. Richard Lane permalink
    June 12, 2012 10:28 pm

    You are so out of touch it’s unbelievable. BCFC have no lawyers dealing with this, the landowners do. It was the council and not the landowners that were defending the JR, even if they had a little help.
    What I am saying now is that, without the constraints of having to be nice and politically correct the landowners legal team will without doubt be far more tuned in to the devious ways of those opposing the stadium and deal with it accordingly.
    The club and council were guilty of being too nice in their dealings with this issue and some of the people concerned, in my opinion. I believe there will be a different approach now.
    This issue is totally out of the hands of the club, as I understand it.
    It is now being dealt with by the landowners and their legal team only.
    I didn’t say they were late putting in evidence, I referred to them putting in a late defence, which they were criticised for but the TVG are supported when putting in a late application of some 9 months, hypocrites.

  7. Richard Lane permalink
    June 12, 2012 10:38 pm

    To date, it is the TVG applicants that have rigged the judiciary.
    They have conned everyone with their version of events, aided and abbetted by every friend they have, incuding the BBC.
    I may be a fool but I’m not a blind fool.
    Judgement day for those outsiders messing with the local residents future, will come, rendering the locals with only the 100 or so acres through the black bridge to play and let their dogs shit on.

  8. harryT permalink
    June 13, 2012 8:55 am

    When the real Richard Lane posts, it is generally necessary to use BCFC as a shorthand as he and many others do not really understand that Vence and Ashton Gate Project Ltd own the land and will only rent it to the club. He would also not understand the difference between submitting a defence and submitting evidence.

    Thanks for letting us know that this next round will involve even more illegality and unfairness than the “too nice” process that has occurred to date. No previous process has required so many anonymity orders nor so much redaction of names and addresses, so it is interesting that you consider that what will come next will be even worse.

    I look forward to seeing the “devious” means which you say that Mr Lansdown and Mr Pontin will use this time around. I am suprised that they would be seeking to alienate even more locals, but that is what you appear to be saying.

  9. Richard Lane permalink
    June 14, 2012 10:54 pm

    You again jump in without first putting brain in gear. Firstly you go into this utterly childish rhetoric about the real Richard Lane, where you dream this stuff up from I don’t know, it only enhances your stupidity.
    Right then, I did not say that the landowners will use devious means.
    I said and it’s there for all to see “the landowners legal team will without doubt be far more tuned in to the devious ways of those opposing the stadium and deal with it accordingly”. As I’ve said before, Brain in gear first.

    I’m trying to out that in the previous dealings, the council, the development team (at BCFC) and the landowners, have all tried to go through this process the correct way. At each stage from the outset the devious ways of those opposing the stadium have come to the fore. It started with the application for a TVG being lodged the day after the application for the stadium, this is an example of the opposition using delaying devious tactics from the outset. Why did the application for a TVG not go in, when it was known two years previous that there were plans for a stadium being drawn up, that was the first cynical act from the opposition.
    At every opportunity the opposition have waited until the last moment before carrying out actions, whilst knowing that they were going to do so from the outset.

    So, I have not said or implied that the legal team will use unfair or illegal tactics, as you claim I did. I just think that they won’t now be hampered by people worrying what people are saying, or by councillors worrying about losing votes. They are now acting for the landowners only.

    Finally, you really must be a pratt of the highest order to think that I am in any way involved with the club or any other organisation regarding the new stadium. I am an ordinary supporter trying to negate some of the utter crap written by people opposing the stadium, (mostly on this site). Please note: I use the term opposition when referring to people so say wanting a TVG.

  10. bobs permalink
    June 15, 2012 8:39 am

    Richard Lane states “Proper people running the show now, accept compromise or lose all.”

    Two days later, BCC confirms that southern half of the site will remain registered as TVG, confirmed in court order and this will not be challenged in any further inquiry.

    And since when did the real Rich Lane use words such as “enhances”, “implied” “hampered” and “negate” and in an entirely grammatically correct series of paragraphs with all the correct punctuation and grammer.

    We have been deabting with Rich for more than 3 years now. We know him better than you do.

    [Expect even higher octane of outrage and insults to follow in style of BCFCFinkerr]

Comments are closed.